UFO comparison: Space Station and Rendlesham Forest incident.

a reply to: Violater1

Try this: From good ol' streetcap1 himself.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Violater1
This is the drawing from a military observer on the scene.

Source?

I read the original witness statements and their drawings posted here, and I don't recall seeing that:

The Rendlesham UFO witness statements

In more recent years I've seen many confabulations occur that bear little resemblance to the original witness statements.

In any case I don't see the resemblance between what's in that drawing and what's in the ISS video.

Here you go, took me about 1 second to find them.
www.therendleshamincident.co.uk...
alien-ufo-research.com...
humansarefree.com...
humansarefree.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Don't see a resemblance? Perhaps you should ask the members above that DO see a resemblance.

a reply to: Violater1

Ah. Penninston's "revised" sketch.
How many times has he changed his story?
www.ianridpath.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Violater1

Try this: From good ol' streetcap1 himself.

I guess that Chris Vellner is streetcap1 (?)
However I do see what your talking about now.
Where would the vantage point be? And the video mentions
one of 5 docking ports. Way past my bedtime but...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Violater1

Ah. Penninston's "revised" sketch.
How many times has he changed his story?
www.ianridpath.com...

I don't know Phage, I wasn't there. But I have been to some places and participated in events that
have been beyond traumatic. Remembering them under the scrutiny of a debriefing, I too had unintentionally left some details out. Have you?

a reply to: Violater1
Yes. That's one reason that I regard eyewitness reports with a great deal of skepticism, especially when they get told repeatedly and change in the telling. Our minds have a way of filling in gaps in our memory, we invent stuff. And not always intentionally.


But he also changed details, he did not just "add" them.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Violater1
Yes. That's one reason that I regard eyewitness reports with a great deal of skepticism, especially when they get told repeatedly and change in the telling. Our minds have a way of filling in gaps in our memory, we invent stuff. And not always intentionally.

Agreed.
During one of my debriefings, I began to retell the same event again. But I added," and that;s when the pink foam began to pour out of the old woman's mouth. "
And another, " the aircraft fuselage had balled up on impact. I could see that the girl had been flung through the cockpit window, filleting her, and she hung there,decapitated, upside down by her ankles"
Somethings, you just don't want to remember.

a reply to: Violater1
Gee. Thank you for that. Want to trade awful stories?
Not sure what it has to do with Penninston's story(ies) though.

a reply to: Phage
If you have ever been to an EBE event, it's very traumatic (at least, that's what I've heard).
You get the willies, and you know that what your seeing"just isn't right" I'm sure the first several times you would come into contact with them you would feel the same way.
That is why I can relate to him changing his story or adding to it, been there, done that.

a reply to: Violater1
The changes in his story are not minor. Read the link I posted.

Which version is the right one?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Violater1
Gee. Thank you for that. Want to trade awful stories?
Not sure what it has to do with Penninston's story(ies) though.

Reading your previous posts through the years, I can tell that you are
a scholar that has had a very eventful life. I'm glad to parlez with you.
I'm truly exhausted, and have to be in report in 8 hours. Good night and until we meet again.

a reply to: Violater1
Actually, I would prefer to not talk about it.
That was the point I was trying to make.

a reply to: Violater1

Whoa, you had encounters with HOSTILE EBEs?

Interesting...

a reply to: Arnie123

Perhaps these particular beings are here under the best of interests.

Lots of information still classified from WW2 apparently, they have released photos of the Nazi aircraft that landed near Rendlesham in 1944.

a reply to: Violater1

I searched and didn't find anything here.

I hear ya,

The whiskey ain't strong enough

The mystery of why Raymond and his brother had to travel west in a `49 Buick with brown leather seats rather than fly has finally been solved for me.

Sounds insane but the ISS 80 cm Cupola "bay window" may have been yet another 1949 dedication.

The Rendlesham forest incident is difficult to reverse engineer but now there are AI image processing tools available to the public.

I found these two images looking through UFO saucer lore, could be the Rosetta to the Penniston tale.





Thanks for the thread!

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Violater1

I searched and didn't find anything here.

I hear ya,

The whiskey ain't strong enough

The mystery of why Raymond and his brother had to travel west in a `49 Buick with brown leather seats rather than fly has finally been solved for me.

Sounds insane but the ISS 80 cm Cupola "bay window" may have been yet another 1949 dedication.

The Rendlesham forest incident is difficult to reverse engineer but now there are AI image processing tools available to the public.

I found these two images looking through UFO saucer lore, could be the Rosetta to the Penniston tale.

Thanks for the thread!

I think we could easily reverse engineer a '57 Studebaker without Penniston's help.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Violater1

Ah. Penninston's "revised" sketch.
How many times has he changed his story?
www.ianridpath.com...

Your grasp along with a whole bunch of others on this forum of this whole phenomenon is a tad lacking isn't it old bean? Ridpath is just a mere dilettante whose knowledge of the subject as whole is akin to watching a parks game of football between kids and extrapolating that out to understand and explain the professional game. The fact is, no matter what Ridpath and his merry bunch of disinformation drones might say, a witness has been give compensation based on their experience that night. An experience that the MOD's own people admit can have long lasting not only, physical effects rather, mental ones as well.

You see, those who have studied the subject at depth and don't just skim it for a particular agenda be it personal or otherwise, have noted that. Where all the witnesses claim to have seen exactly the same thing and they were "close up and personal" with the active object then often, either it's a misidentification of an earthly or known object, or a hoax. Mental disorientation, time losses, memory changes, wild discrepancies between witnesses' testimony and descriptions in close contact with each other at the time of the encounter, are all commensurate with the genuine close up phenomenon.

In fact, if you study the subject properly, it is almost impossible not to note how, stand off and distant sightings generally are agreed upon detail wise by multiple witnesses, the exact opposite is the case when the witnesses are up close to what might well be, the very same object.

The truth is, the more we know, the less we truly understand and yet, there does seem to be a pattern for those who truly have an interest in the subject. That is, when we come within a certain distance of these objects, they interact with us on a level whereby, they allow us to see what they/it wants us to see mixed in with the witnesses' own deepest psyche, their hopes, their fears etc. That is , whatever the phenomenon might be, it wants us to view it however, it chooses to let us see what it wishes us to see, the moment we approach it close up. I would further suggest that, the military has reached it's own accommodation of these objects based on a belief that. They could wipe us out with casual swat, they/it haven't, they/it haven't either, sought to "take over the earth"; so, the military just lives with it and chooses to pretend to the world at large that, it doesn't happen at all.


Ergo, in the case of Rendlesham, the general confusion of those who were close up and personal with the object suggests that, something did indeed happen over those nights and whilst, they/it achieved what they were seeking , we are still, pretty much in the dark about it all. I suspect that just how they/it, currently want things to be.

a reply to: draknoir2

The Thunderbird symbol used by Studebaker was a native American symbol from the southwestern United States.
The former Junge Adler version probably was used with reference to the Norse legend of the thunder god Thor.




The Studebaker I had in mind was the `51 Commander with lots of glass over the trunk which provided a majestic rear view panarama.

See Zap`s Norway pen reply to my question.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: draknoir2

The Thunderbird symbol used by Studebaker was a native American symbol from the southwestern United States.
The former Junge Adler version probably was used with reference to the Norse legend of the thunder god Thor.

The Studebaker I had in mind was the `51 Commander with lots of glass over the trunk which provided a majestic rear view panarama.

See Zap`s Norway pen reply to my question.

I know. I get The Velocity Channel too.

Wow