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: 7
129
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman
You appear to have no read the quote or the link at:
www.ianridpath.com - Were the radiation readings significant?
Read the following quote, please:

My earlier inquiries had shown that the radiation monitor used by Halt and his team would have been of the type known as an AN/PDR-27. On behalf of Frank Close, NRPB contacted the American manufacturers of the AN/PDR-27, who stated that Halt’s peak measurement of 0.1 mR/h was the “bottom reading on the lowest range” of the monitor and was “of little or no significance”. They noted further that these instruments are designed to be used to monitor workplace fields or radiation levels after sizable nuclear incidents and are therefore not suitable for environmental monitoring at background levels. On the basis of this information from the manufacturers, NRPB concluded that using such an instrument to establish a level of 10 times background is not credible.

This, therefore, is the official view of NRPB and of the makers of the radiation monitor, which Frank Close publicly demonstrated to Nick Pope and millions of viewers on live TV on 1997 June 27. To confirm the matter I subsequently wrote to NRPB to ensure that there was no misunderstanding. In a letter to me dated 1997 July 7 Michael Clark of the NRPB stated: “We are convinced of the correctness of our interpretation.”

Do you or do you not understand english.

As well, Nick Pope has been discredited, first with a contact at DERA who was no informed of the new information above nor told their PRIVATE statements were being used as evidence, and regarding YOUR linked memo:

In a pro-UFO TV programme first broadcast in 2009 called I Know What I Saw, Nick Pope was interviewed about the radiation readings at Rendlesham. In this interview, Pope did not rely on his now-discredited ‘investigation’ discussed above but showed instead this internal memo from the Ministry of Defence files which says in part: “The value of 0.1 milliroentgens (mr) ... seems significantly higher than the average background of about 0.015 mr.” In the TV interview, a clip of which can be seen here, Pope described the memo as “One of the most important documents to emerge from the MoD’s case files... absolute proof positive that something extraordinary happened”.

The MoD files make it clear that they never undertook any investigation into the radiation levels at Rendlesham so they never established the truth about the readings reported by Halt. The opinion in the MoD memo was based on the same assumptions as Pope’s own cursory ‘investigation’, namely that the figure quoted by Halt was a steady level and taken with an appropriate instrument. As we have seen, both these assumptions are incorrect – it was a random peak recorded by a meter designed to measure much higher levels of radiation. Hence the opinion quoted by Pope is no ‘proof’ at all and would doubtless have been withdrawn had the MoD established the full facts laid out above.

Please read the link next time. So many claims of conspiracy on ATS are because people don't read or fact check. It's sloppy.
edit on 28-2-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks, that summary really helped me to frame the situation a lot better.

In terms of what actually happened to Burroughs do we know when in relation to exposure he received treatment? Was he left in a life threatening condition or did his condition become life threatening over time as a result of the exposure?

Sorry to be lazy, but I am struggling to find specifics and was hoping for pointers in the right direction. Cheers.


John Burroughs received corrective heart surgery in late 2013. This was some 33 years after the original incident.

In the immediate aftermath of the Rendlesham incident any deterioration in his (Burroughs) condition was not made public for more than 30 years. Burroughs did appear in various UK & US TV documentaries - "Unsolved Mysteries" circa 1990, "Strange But True" circa 1993 and "UFO Files - Britain's Roswell" circa 2005 . His heart trouble was not mentioned (nor seemingly diagnosed) in any of those programs.

Larry Warren (another witness from the 3rd night) has claimed the retinas of his eyes were damaged from his experiences in the forest. But until now, not one of the witnesses has appeared to have successfully claimed for damages against the VA.

If you want to know the Rendlesham story in detail and have enough patience then please let me refer you to a much more in depth thread I created on the incident here : www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: mirageman
You appear to have no read the quote or the link at:
www.ianridpath.com - Were the radiation readings significant?
...

Read the following quote, please:

My earlier inquiries had shown that the radiation monitor used by Halt and his team would have been of the type known as an AN/PDR-27. On behalf of Frank Close, NRPB contacted the American manufacturers of the AN/PDR-27, who stated that Halt’s peak measurement of 0.1 mR/h was the “bottom reading on the lowest range” of the monitor and was “of little or no significance”. They noted further that these instruments are designed to be used to monitor workplace fields or radiation levels after sizable nuclear incidents and are therefore not suitable for environmental monitoring at background levels. On the basis of this information from the manufacturers, NRPB concluded that using such an instrument to establish a level of 10 times background is not credible.

This, therefore, is the official view of NRPB and of the makers of the radiation monitor, which Frank Close publicly demonstrated to Nick Pope and millions of viewers on live TV on 1997 June 27. To confirm the matter I subsequently wrote to NRPB to ensure that there was no misunderstanding. In a letter to me dated 1997 July 7 Michael Clark of the NRPB stated: “We are convinced of the correctness of our interpretation.”

Do you or do you not understand english.


I don't get why you are becoming so aggressive?

Being English I assure you am fully conversant in my native tongue.

I merely indicated that there had been a long ongoing dispute about the radiation readings made by Halt's 'Disaster Preparedness Officer' and cited the evidence presented by both sides in the case.

However you are confusing that debate with the Condign report which alludes to radiation from a natural phenomenon and is not necessarily linked to Halt's investigations.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman
You choose to not read again. You can lead a horse to... I'm done with you. Lastly, there's no "ongoing dispute" about Halt's readings. The dispute, if there ever was one, was over the late 90's. Goodbye for now.
edit on 28-2-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
That is completely marvellous, thanks mirageman. And I will check out your thread.

Total speculation, based on an open invitation for all and sundry to throw spanners, but would it be safe to make the assumption that radiation and the lapse in time until definitive treatment that this shredding was caused by cancer? I am wondering if it was a Carcinoid tumor.
edit on 28-2-2015 by Anaana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

Except my post didn't imply that bots were being used on this site:


You were responding to the post by PlanetXishere which suggested the possibility of a bot "starring" posts. You said you didn't know what was happening here but that there were bots operating elsewhere. I was just continuing the conversation. What was your point of bringing that up in response to the original post if it wasn't meant as support of that idea?

But regardless---my bad. I'll try not to do that again.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman




I can't see the US testing something in England without full agreement of the UK MoD.



Or at all testing a supposedly top secret aircraft and basing it in a foreign country...



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Just to elucidate on the grounds of my speculation, I had read this story earlier of a possible sighting of lights in the Rendlesham area earlier this year and this stood out for me...


He wrote: ‘Spotted three balls of light in the sky yesterday afternoon whilst walking around Rendlesham Forest and couldn’t believe what I was seeing! Had a very weird feeling that I shouldn’t have been there.


It resonates with folklore, and of course we all get variations of that kind of reaction to our environment from time to time, when we go up a level in awareness and excitation, but that in itself suggests some release, or inhibition, of serotonin to facilitate the flight or fight response. I am not for a moment comparing the experiences of those in the article with Burroughs, just that it gave me the train of thought.


Carcinoid tumors are rare neuroendocrine malignancies. In more than 50% of patients with carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease develops. Carcinoid heart disease is characterized by plaques of fibrous tissue related to vasoactive substances delivered by the carcinoid tumor. It is thought that high circulating serotonin concentrations are a major contributor to development of carcinoid heart disease.

The disease predominantly affects the right-sided valves as the lungs filter the tumor products before they reach the left atrium. If carcinoid valvular heart disease involves the MV or AV, a right-to-left shunt or a primary bronchial carcinoid is frequently found.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

A experience that created a massive rush of serotonin, perhaps followed by chemical dreams reliving it? Just looking at the VA criteria for compensation for exposure to ionizing radiation...


To be eligible for compensation, VA must be able to establish that it is at least as likely as not that a Veteran’s disease was caused by his/her exposure to radiation during military service.


www.publichealth.va.gov...

There needed to be a clear cause and effect or they wouldn't have paid out. It's either that they were involved in something classified that they didn't know they were involved in and the DoD settled as the lesser of two evils, or the DoD and VA could not refute the direct medical connection between that one exposure and the specific ailment that Burrough's had.

All very confusing, so lot's of fun to play with.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

It's not really so interesting, in that it is, as is typical with any subject referencing UFOs, all mixed up in wonder and in being mixed up. Talking about UFOs still, still ignores that many / most sightings of UFOs, while unidentified flying objects, are just secret earth crafts. As Rosinitiate indicated earlier, but I think many interested people don't quite realise the full meaning of this.

(Insert: There's a mini essay going here, not planned. But as I'm a rambler and not so smart in other ways, it's too hard for me to edit this right now.)

If I can say, I know for a fact numerous militaries / governments indeed created ways of flying, technologies not in the public domain, I don't think many people would be surprised in that case. However these are just man made aircraft, shapes which are not usually seen, technology not known by many. Still, they've been developed and built here on earth, and flown by humans or remotely flown by humans.

I think most with any kind of interest in UFOs accept there are organisations of men which have made such craft, that would impress many people with their technology today. Perhaps beyond their wildest dreams. I think many more people accept this than doubt it. I think those who do doubt it would, rather objectively, given evidence leaked through the years, and the darn likelihood of this kind of thing (if you don't know), be in the more unrealistic camp.

So, you have a new tech craft in the 1980s in Suffolk, UK and it has red lights or whatever and whatever else unusual, unexpected phenomena. But it's just another military craft / or even just a test craft.

Come on, we must more or less know that there are a lot of these things. Governments separately, and maybe together, build advanced technology and don't tell the public. I think anyone should be more or less sure of that.

So, a sighting of one or more of these things, isn't too much of a big deal in the sense that it's what we completely expect there to be. From the off, there is no suggestion of aliens, no suggestion of a craft from another planet or dimension. Indeed we hold that secret man made craft must indeed be being built / tested flown. So, it's just everything you expect as a matter of course, if you're prepared to give things a bit of normal thought. Then there's no big deal whatsoever about the US government or anyone else admitting that its army officers in Suffolk in 1980 did indeed witness something and it's not just a helicopter or typical military plane. Some staff are included, some just aren't and won't be.

As for the reverse engineered alien technology claims, how can that ever be proven? Are governments ever going to give such things away if they have happened? My guess is not before hell freezes over.

Perhaps it's when you get into occurrences such as the 1975 Snowflake Arizona episode (dramatized well in the film "Fire in the Sky") that things get murkier. The suggestion there is that a man was seen to be knocked out of the way by a very bright tractor beam from a large UFO craft and then disappeared. He reappears some days later, in a really bad way. In the film, he seems to have been experimented upon. He claims he was tortured by aliens and was in a pod which would have consumed him to die, presumably as food for aliens. He claims he found rotten human corpses in other pods. He claims he managed to get away somehow.

My estimate is that, if governments do know about anything like or remotely related to this kind of thing, they're kind of never, ever, ever going to divulge anything about it. My estimate is, if any similar kind of thing happens and is known, and involves other species than known on earth, it's way above Top Secret - Eyes Only status. It would never even be written about, only spoken of orally and only then in code.

Even then, taking the situation from film "Fire in the Sky", there was a UFO. Couldn't it also have been a government test craft? With new technology it threw a man from where he stood. He was knocked out, hurt, unconscious. Maybe then he had dreams he thought were real. Maybe military people in the craft picked him up and drugged him, giving him hallucinations. There was an Indian reserve quite near the place. Perhaps some Indians took him, gave him healing drugs to keep him alive, enducing hallucinations, then left him back near home.

My main point is, a government just giving some very ambiguous nods in the way of that some people really did see SOMETHING at a particular time and place, doesn't really mean a whole lot and perhaps doesn't even say anything much new. At the very least it should be nothing unexpected, if it's part of what most people expect in the secret technology area anyhow.

Of course, admitting this kind of technology would be a major step forward. But at the same time, we do kind of know it is there. So there's this kind of nearly open secret in ways. We also know governments really won't divulge this kind of thing. Not only for "national security" reasons, but because these kind of technologies made into, for example, craft, if going beyond testing / development alone are likely to be illegal in international and national laws to possess and use. The potential for harm to people who would fly in them is likely huge, and not possible to prove safe by laws. Also, the potential for using the craft to harm people is probably too huge for international bodies to allow. These things probably wouldn't be allowed to use airspace officially by international conventions and laws if they were openly known by detail of what they are.

So, we more or less know these kind of things are there. Or at least most people reasonably feel it's a likely or very likely thing. Still they're secret, and will stay that way because, for many reasons, they just can't be made public, perhaps. (Unless forcibly from "without". But "they've" thought of that and security is unsurpassable. These days we know, even if you do find out, you'd probably be "programmed" not to speak beyond your own choice. Then everything you do and say can be tracked all over the world instantly anyway.)

To sum up, UFOs - they're there. Does not need to mean anything to do with anyone other than humans. It might. The first category - human craft, is partly / nearly approaching some kind of open secret, but not in the detail. Detail will never be divulged if the governments get their way (which is likely). Anything further is also never going to be divulged by governments, if they know, unless evidence comes from the people first.

So we should not be looking to governments to learn about things like this. The only learning could come from experiences / evidence of the people. Also, it's hard evidence needed to get any further into knowledge.

--
Sorry the account of the aliens in the film "Fire in the Sky" from the film character, Travis Walton, differs significantly from the real version by the real abductee, Travis Walton. He doesn't think the aliens he saw were harming / killing anyone. There was no "humans as food" element. He now believes that they may have wanted to help him. The film version of the abduction memory is just very different from the real event. I'd watched the film recently, not re-checked the real event which I knew from years ago, and forgot the difference.
edit on 28-2-2015 by bw1000 because: Correction

edit on 28-2-2015 by bw1000 because: Edited.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Sorry if I'm annoying people who want to think things like, "The government can come out with this. There is no reason why our chosen leaders and those who are elected to care for us will not in good time come around to telling us what we ought to know".
Yeah, it's a negative perspective in a way. Also, I think more positive, in realism. I just cannot accept that governments, especially of all governments in the world (and probably beyond!!!) these two, the US and British governments, are ever going to simply stand up and tell all if they can ever get away with not doing that, by any means at all.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana

There needed to be a clear cause and effect or they wouldn't have paid out.


I don't know that I agree with that. The VA is a huge government bureaucracy that doesn't necessarily operate in a logical manner.

And with lots of organizations and businesses people are often paid just so they'll go away.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

As you say, DelMarvel, there are lots and lots of bodies - committees, organisations, sub-committees, sub-councils, supervisory organisations etc. As if in certain courts / tribunals, you'll also get occasional bodies of men and women who are found to be in a kind of jurisdiction of their own. Either their constitution, their reason for being, will include (almost like a particular court within the separation of powers) that they do not answer to anyone above them as far as possible. Then they may even be not allowed, officially, by their own constitution to accept calls from "above" for them to remain silent on issues.

I had learned that, within the administration of the US government there are these bodies - councils, investigative bodies, whatever which sometimes are faced with a dilemma of their official raison d'etre making it illegal and unconsitutional of them to obey a silencing order "from above". Yet they have to consider that they are ordered to do so from perhaps the highest parts of government. One order is constitutional and so would appear to be unchallengeable, yet again, perhaps the highest authority is attempting to override it. In the end, it can come down to what they can get out without / before being stopped. I imagine kind of X-File situations of disappearing evidence, spying and subterfuge can go on and it can boil down to what some people with a certain interest manage to achieve in time or don't.

These bodies may ignore orders outside of their little governing constitution. But if they don't manage to make a report public or whatever, for example, it can be snapped up and disappear and they may not be able to do anything about that then. They will have officially fulfilled their role and can do no more.

What I'm saying is that, at some times, their reports / findings / directions etc may not be snapped up in time and disappear, and there are these bodies which can proceed with the ability to ignore directions from higher authorities to not publish.
edit on 28-2-2015 by bw1000 because: Correction


---

So this is an extra situation to my long comment above, where I'm saying basically that the government is never going to admit anything if they can have a fraction of chance there. There are many official bodies in every single unit, and between and over units and so on, and some of them are ones which certain people in authority might not be able to control in certain circumstances. Sometimes just a matter of chance of they becoming involved. But at the same time, I don't think they're ever going to be very explicit.
edit on 28-2-2015 by bw1000 because: Addition



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Well, I just spent some more time unsuccessfully looking for anything from the VA about this and I've come to this conclusion:

There has to be paperwork that Burroughs got in connection with his settlement. It's the federal government after all. And whatever paperwork he got doesn't support his interpretation of the settlement or he and his lawyer would have published it along with the press release.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel


You were responding to the post by PlanetXishere which suggested the possibility of a bot "starring" posts. You said you didn't know what was happening here but that there were bots operating elsewhere. I was just continuing the conversation. What was your point of bringing that up in response to the original post if it wasn't meant as support of that idea?

But regardless---my bad. I'll try not to do that again.


No prob. I just felt like it would've been more appropriate for you to have quoted the actual post in question. I was only bringing up the fact that peculiar things like this do, from time to time, occur on different sites. Mainly those which use the disqus format.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Putting aside the matter of de facto admissions of the UAP phenomenon by the US DoD, the following quote is nothing as ambiguous as 'de facto'. It is categorical, documentary proof that the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence) considers the UAP phenomenon to be absolutely real, in a verified, tangible way, and not only that, but there are in fact elements of the phenomenon which can be considered as 'normal', according to the investigative standards of the highly efficient & capable (though sadly diminishing these days) British military forces - even way back when, in the early 1980s...


...for longer than normal UAP sighting periods.


Thanks MOD, the release of this information confirms what we long suspected. I will now have a think, and come up with a list of questions, which I hope you will surreptitiously answer in due course, seeing as you have form for sharing pieces of the truth (such as is known). Spooky stuff!








(Go MOD!)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

I think it runs deeper than bots simply starring posts according to 'Official Story' scale of best fit - it extends to deliberate tampering with an end user's ability to star posts that are incisive, relevant, barnstorming affronts against the 'Official Story', particularly those which are full of logic, reasonable hypotheses, proposed further investigation or links to other topics which might help solve the puzzle. I've been frustrated so many times by trying to star a post & it takes three, four, five attempts to make the star 'stick' - only to reload the page & find that in some cases, a 'glitch' has made it disappear.

I had one the other day, someone laid a total smackdown of the critics, in two short sentences, and it should have garnered twenty or more stars by its sheer clarity, relevance & logic, by such proving the weight of the OPs info & hypothesis in one fell swoop. It had only seven stars (yet was sandwiched between several debunkers with well over 10 stars each for their nonsensical ad hominems & off-topic strawmans, none of which were particularly clever or interesting, or addressed the crux of the matter at all). In this instance, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I TRIED, it was simply impossible to give the dude a star. There was a convenient 'glitch', which continued to recur throughout the thread, when trying to give stars to rational proposals related to the info/hypothesis in the OP.

STAR BIAS appears to be an established method of presenting the appearance of opinion dominance, when it is inconvenient for too much attention to be placed upon the sound proposals/counter-bunking of detractors from the OS...



ETA - I've often wondered why some members who post excellent, lucid theory with solid source material tend to seem largely ignored by the ATS crowds. It's possible that 'someone' **cough, cough - NSA, cyber information dominance ops - cough, cough** has a goodly portion of backdoor access to pretty much anything it chooses, even better if someone's on the payroll. Subtle manipulation of a user's 'points' and 'ranking', or matters of threadkilling/ forum sliding; heck, even internet bubble lockdown, could be involved. M'eh. What can we do? Chuff all. Sad times.

It's all about establishing an acceptable narrative, then moulding perceptions for both the instinctive/analytical/loopy detractors & button-down/non sequiter/militant supporters. The truth is somewhere between the two, usually, but barely anyone can claim to know with absolute certainty on most topics up for discussion.





ETA - context



edit on MarchSunday1503CST01America/Chicago-060016 by FlyInTheOintment because: per ETA



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Great to hear!!! Lets sit back and see what happens next.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

according to a press release..... ha ha ha. yeah!



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite


As late as last year Nick Pope wrote in his book "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" concerning the radiation readings made by Nevels.




Some skeptics in the UFO community have suggested tl1at the radiation levels might not be as significant as the MoD suspected, arguing that the Geiger counter used was not appropriate for the task and even speculating that the dial might have been misread. I'm wary when ufologists start trying to second guess the measurements taken by the trained military personnel who were actually there, or questioning the contemporaneous scientific assessment.

Nevels used the equipment available to him (there being no such thing as a UFO radiation detector!) and the DIS assessment used the readings reported to the MoD. We can only use the data we have, not the data we'd like to have or think we should have had. That's the way science works.

In any case, such speculation misses the key point; the radiation levels peaked in the three indentations found where the craft was said to have landed. It's like using a metal detector and hearing a bleep; in a sense, it doesn't matter what make or model of metal detector is, or whether its dial reads 1 out of 10 or 8 out of 10; the key point is that it bleeped — that tells you there's something there!


Source: Nick Pope - Encounter in Rendlesham Forest



So it seems Nick Pope still disputes the interpretations of the radiation readings in some capacity.

But it's really not that important.

The comments about the UAP radiation in the Condign reports is not directly linked to the readings Nevels made on 27th/28th Dec 1980. Burroughs was also present on the 25th/26th when no attempt to take radiation readings was made. So I am not sure why you are getting so wound up about a point that is not necessarily that relevant to any injuries John Burroughs may have sustained.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

By the way I stand slightly corrected on Burroughs injuries I have found that almost from day one he was suffering medical problems (although this information was not made public until much later).




In 1979, Burroughs passed the USAF entrance physical and was assigned to RAF Woodbridge, where, in December, 1980 he was exposed to the effects of an anomalous vehicle. From the moment of the event, Burroughs suffered from a variety of symptoms, including those of eye, throat, and gum disease.

In the summer of 1981, Burroughs made a visit to a civilian emergency room and was found to have an unusual heart condition. Despite this, he was allowed to stay in the military and remain on active duty.

In 1988, when Burroughs left active duty for the reserves, his exit physical records show vision and heart damage, clearly implying that he incurred disability during the term of his service.

In 2011, while attempting to diagnose unfamiliar symptoms of worsening heart problems, Burroughs' civilian doctor asked for his medical records.

After filing a 2012 claim with former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl's office seeking assistance in obtaining records, Burroughs suffered another episode of symptoms of heart disease, resulting in the implant of a pacemaker.


See : Full Document




A letter was also sent to President Obama concerning problems getting medical files (of both Burroughs and Jim Penniston) released on May 3rd 2013.


Click to view full size


edit on 1/3/15 by mirageman because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join