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.

 

The Condign report. Is it a Red Herring or is it not in the Rendlesham affair?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I bring this one up due to Jim Penniston and co not in agreement with John Burroughs.

It appears that the Condign report is seen as a red herring. I would like others with experience and knowledge re all of that to perhaps look closer into this matter?
edit on 5.30.2016 by Kandinsky because: Added text to OP




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
[snipped]


edit on 5.30.2016 by Kandinsky because: Moved the text to the OP



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Can you fill me in on what any of that is or means ? Do you have a link to any of this? ....I'm not familiar with this report or the people involved. ....granted ,I won't be able to contribute any information regarding this .....but would still like to understand what you are posting about and its issue.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Meldionne1


Here is a link.

thetruthhides.wordpress.com...


Cheers.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
So you basically want someone else to do all the research for you and then write out a thread, giving you all that information you were too lazy to look for yourself?
No thanks.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

No, I don't believe I actually said that David64.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Marylongstockings

As far as I'm aware, it's a report listing alleged UFO sightings reviewed by various sections of the UK government. In itself it doesn't state that any were the result of ET encounters, and one of the investigators who requested a copy through the Freedom of Information Act concluded it did not provide any new information on the phenomena.

You can google and find the full report if you require further information on it, but linking to a fairly biased blog as you have in one post in this thread doesn't really offer a balanced view. Think of it more as a case report of allegations made by multiple individuals on a number of events. The FBI vault has something similar but in both cases it consists mainly of what individuals have reported and the results of any investigation that may then have taken place.

Red herring? In what way? I suppose it depends if you think it's trying to hide something or is giving an objective report. Not quite sure I agree with the rather sensationalist opinion Mr Nick Pope (or Mr rent-a-quote) has given about it.
edit on 30-5-2016 by uncommitted because: slight addition



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Hi Mary,

I appreciate you've only been here a day or two and so don't fully understand the forums as yet. So hopefully I can give you a little advice.

Your opening post would have been better placed in the existing Rendlesham threads. It is far too specific and gives no context as to what Condign is nor who John Burroughs or Jim Penniston is. Many of the members will have no idea what you are talking about as not everyone is clued up on the Rendlesham UFO case as you obviously are.

If you are going to create a full post then may I suggest having a look at some of the better posts ( for example : www.abovetopsecret.com... to see how it's done. JKRog08, now sadly departed, achieved a very high quality.

This Guide to ATS bulletin board code may be a little out of date but is also a great reference in how to format text and pictures as well as adding video.

Regards MM
edit on 30/5/16 by mirageman because: typos



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

HI Mirage Man,
Thank you. I was very unsure if it was a wise thing to do , to put the mention of the Condign stuff in that existing thread, I was speaking about the binary codes and did not want to mix it up and thought is it not a better idea for me to start a new string as I tried to attempt here, I can see I probably have not gone about this in quite the right way and am more than happy to just shut of this particular post and ask or discuss the Condign stuff on that existing string, . I really do appreciate your advice and links.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Hi Uncommitted,
Thank you also for your response. I will take MMs advice and will rather just keep to the existing posts on Rendlesham, rather than attempt to set up something new and with such limited knowledge of how ATS works. My intentions where sincere however in wanting to go into this matter a little more closely. I am still exploring the various posts and it is a little confusing.
I appreciate your response



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Can you fill me in on what any of that is or means ? Do you have a link to any of this? ....I'm not familiar with this report


I realise that Marylongstockings has moved on from this thread, but just for the benefit of anyone that clicks on this thread I thought I'd mention that I posted a rather long item on the UFO UpDates email discussion List about the Condign Report the day before the Condign Report was released online in 2006. I reposted that long item on ATS in 2008 in a thread HERE - which included this brief introduction:



The Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the relevant fields, and

(b) without involving any consultation with ufologists to determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments opposing that theory.


(I wrote that item a decade ago. If I was writing it now, there would be a lot more material to be included. Also, I would now - as some of you familiar with my more recent posts can probably guess- include more links, photographs and videos rather than posting a wall of text...).

edit on 30-5-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
I bring this one up due to Jim Penniston and co not in agreement with John Burroughs.

It appears that the Condign report is seen as a red herring. I would like others with experience and knowledge re all of that to perhaps look closer into this matter?


The fact that you got responses from not one but two of the most revered, and rightly so, posters with regards the UFO phenomenon on the whole of the interwebz should definitely push you to further investigation regarding this matter!




posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Hi Isaac,
Well I have not completely vanished as of yet, so perhaps if others think it is worthwhile then perhaps
this can be continued or as mentioned ,moved over to the other posts in regards to to Rendlesham
I was trying to be very specific in regards to the start of this new post but realise that this is ATS and
its a little more complicated than say, "Facebook" groups and such.

But what I am really trying to get at and it probably is more for those who are very familiar with Rendlesham are matters re John and Jim.
Whilst I am really no expert on the Condign report by any stretch, I do know who says what in all of the RFI drama.

1. It is noticed on Jims "First Responders " page on Facebook, he does put out a public statement. His words are that
the Condign report is a "Fools Errand" and gives reasons why this is quoting something from the net
and just some vague comment without going into "real" details why. He also claims Johns injuries where
not caused by something at Bentwaters.

2. We know that John Burroughs brings out the Condign report all the time to support his stuff.

The different view points make me want to look further into the Condign report and John and the VA
stuff and the whys to Jim Pennistons claims about this report.

3. There is a link on the net which also points out some of the mistakes and errors in the Condign
report and is the same the first responders quote with their views.

4. Those with much more experience and knowledge than I, was hoping that they may offer
some thoughts re the Jim and John situation in regards to this Condign stuff.

5. Some months ago I received some info, I cannot verify the source so its nothing more than a "tale"
at this point. But it would suggest the report was created to misdirect in regards to the RFI. Because of
that info and looking at how this is going. I question further.

This is just a brief few words but am sure you will understand what am getting at perhaps.

Thanks also for your info re the Condign stuff too. I am also trying to figure the foremat
on this site too, so I apologise in advance for errors etc.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

I was hoping this would hopefully bring about further discussion.
I do realise however, that with been new to the ATS site, I may well not have
started the post in just the right way. But I did try, it can either improve or
die a death or perhaps continue on the larger Rendlesham post out there.
Thanks for your comment





posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: uncommitted

Hi Uncommitted,
Thank you also for your response. I will take MMs advice and will rather just keep to the existing posts on Rendlesham, rather than attempt to set up something new and with such limited knowledge of how ATS works. My intentions where sincere however in wanting to go into this matter a little more closely. I am still exploring the various posts and it is a little confusing.
I appreciate your response








Hi Marylongstockings,

It can be confusing, but you'll soon get used to it - welcome to ATS



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Hi All,

This is one of the primary reasons for wishing to look into Project Condign.

This clipped post is from the "First Responders page" which is Jim Pennistons FB page re Rendlesham.

I believe their are two other admins, one recent addition would be Gary Osborn.

Also it has become very clear that Jim does not consider John's injuries are a result of the RFI
incident?






posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Thank you Uncommitted. I have not quite given up yet



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: uncommitted

Thank you Uncommitted. I have not quite given up yet




Well, you should never give up. For the record, I'm not sure what Penniston was expecting. Frankly that's his problem. Anyhow, Isaackoi and MirageMan are two of the real big names in this area, I'm an interested bystander so looking forward to anything they may offer.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Thank you for the heads up


I assume you believe John Burroughs injuries where caused by what he encountered
in the forest?




posted on May, 31 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: uncommitted

Thank you for the heads up


I assume you believe John Burroughs injuries where caused by what he encountered
in the forest?



Personally, no, but I am completely open minded as to what his injuries were (assuming there really were injuries) and what caused them.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join