The Judge and Jury are patiently waiting... and he's a grumpy old sod, peering down at you over his spectacles with disdain and potential ridicule.
For some of you, the exhibits may ALL relate to the same case, or some other permutation and combination, but that's up to you. Cool? Cool.
I'll approach them first...
Exhibit 1: Best Incident
Rendlesham Forest, UK, 26th-28th Dec 1980
It was a close call but our dear old mate, Rendlesham Forest, wins for me. Still breathing after nearly 38 years - a new documentary 'Capel Green'
is imminent; one personnel's DNA was recently analysed; and TTSA are testing 'material' - this baby has it all. Often referred to as 'Britain's
Roswell', that may be a curse rather than a recommendation.
IN A NUTSHELL (for the full, epic journey, visit Mirageman's Rendlesham thread):
Covering three consecutive nights, we have statements from USAF personnel stationed at RAF Woodbridge, who, early on 26th Dec 1980, in response to a
potential crashed aircraft, follow strange lights through a forest (possibly from a landed triangular object) until reaching a field where nothing but
a lighthouse beam can be seen. The next night, a female lieutenant, so traumatised by a blue light that penetrates her vehicle, is taken off duty.
Early on 28th, Colonel Halt, alerted to fresh lights, leads a search party, taking radiation readings and soil samples from a 'landing site'. They
witness various lights including a 'blinking' red orb that leads them to a field where it splits into three. Star-like objects then send down thin
beams of light, possibly onto the USAF base. A tape recording, narrated by Halt, covers most of these events.
So far, so good. After gathering extra info not included in initial statements for the first night (eg, a 'triangular craft'), Halt waits until 13th
Jan 1981 to send a now-infamous memo to the Ministry Of Defence. Rather brief, dry and deliberately non-sensational, the memo remained a secret until
1983 when UK tabloid 'The News Of The World' broke the story.
What makes the case both fascinating and frustrating is: the non-disclosure until 1983; the lighthouse only being visible from the 'landing site'
and not from the base where reported lights began the saga; the sheer quality of witnesses; but also the rivalry amongst them. Eg, Larry Warren either
witnessed a spectacular event where the Base Commander greeted three light entities from a damaged craft that he agreed to repair(!), all recorded on
film... or... he conflated others' accounts and gossip, adding fancy décor to create a big fat lie (written up as 'Left At East Gate' (1997), now
disowned by his co-author). Oddly, Warren's tale matches gossip spread around local pubs shortly after the incident by a base member using a false
name, often regarded as a disinformation agent, but WHY?
Airman John Burroughs (whose DNA was analysed) has this week retired from the case - a witness on the first but also the third night when he was
allegedly bathed in a blue light after Halt (returning from the field) gave permission to pursue a blue orb. He was accompanied by Sgt Bustinza who is
also crucial to Warren's story! John, whose account has remained consistent, bemoans the first night's co-witness Jim Penniston embellishing his
story to include touching the craft and drawing alleged insignia in his notebook, as well as mentally 'downloading' and writing down binary codes -
which all pointed to time-travellers from the future!
See what I mean? It's all here! The Rendlesham Forest case is BIG, it's unwieldy, it's messy, and will probably endure so long as Charles Halt
keeps saying unhelpful guff like this:
”Dude, I secretly KNOW this bitch is ALIEN, but I ain't tellin' y'all diddly-squat!”
Thanks, Chuck. Very helpful.
Exhibit 2: Best Photograph
Paul Trent, Sheridan, Oregon, 11th May 1950
Some may slap their heads, but the two infamous 1950 “Paul Trent” photographs (aka “McMinnville” albeit a geographical misnomer) stand the
test of time for me, the above underside angle being my choice of pic for its sheer 'weightiness'.
On 11th May 1950, at 19:30, Mrs Trent witnessed a metallic disc slowly gliding from the northeast. Her hubby took two shots before it sped off, but
didn't develop the film until finishing the roll. On 8th June, the front-page of the 'Telephone Register' newspaper screamed: “At long last
– Authentic Photographs Of Flying Saucer?”
Interestingly, in 1997 the Trents admitted they suspected it was a military craft, worried that the Big Boys would throw them into a pit for taking
pics. I can almost smell these babies are genuine, but as to what the mystery craft actually is, I can't rule out a military angle. Speaking of
which, could something like the experimental Avrocar VZ-9AV of the 1950s be a culprit...?
An enlargement of Trent's object from a second pic:
Hmmm, could be, could be... and if such US experiments were indeed the culprit, how many other 50s/60s sightings deserve a second chin-rub?
Nevertheless, I can't shake off my gut instinct that this is a genuine photograph of a real UFO, in the literal sense at least. For an epic Pro & Con
rumble in the jungle about the pics, I recommend gortex's 2009 thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Exhibit 3: Best Film
The Kaikoura Lights, off South Island, New Zealand, 30th Dec 1978
(If you want the full story, ziggystar60's superb 10-year-old thread is a corker: www.abovetopsecret.com...)
Mesmerising me as a kid, these anomalies began on 21st Dec 1978 when an Argosy cargo aircraft spotted a house-sized UFO with five white flashing
lights flying alongside them, vanishing and reappearing at will and tracked by on-board radar as well as Wellington air traffic control. Intrigued, on
20th Dec, an Australian TV crew joined the aircraft on a flight to Christchurch to film a mini-report about the incident, not expecting to witness and
film UFOs themselves! Various lights surrounded the Argosy, again tracked on radar, one light following them for most of the route until the Argosy
landed at Christchurch.
As an unexpected bonus, taking off from Christchurch to Blenheim, at 2000 feet the TV crew were alerted yet again, managing to film a huge lighted orb
that followed the aircraft for nearly 15 minutes, similarly tracked on radar. The rest is televisual history: genuine colour footage of a giant orb by
a professional TV cameraman.
Now THAT is sexy, Judge - come on, give me a nod and a smile, you stiff schmuck!
"Contempt Of Court"? Whaaa? Nooooooooooooooooo...where are you taking me.......?!!!
Which three exhibits would YOU present to the grumpy old Judge and sceptical Jury?
THAT, has to be one of THE most interesting STS sightings I have ever seen, and pretty sure I have seen that before, many times. I am sure I saw this
on one episode of Science Channel's excellent older episodes of "Nasa's Unexplained Files." Looks like someone or something was in the hood, cruising
around and thought they would swing by to take a look, then decided there wasn't much to see and off we go! As Spock would have said, "fascinating."
To me whatever that was looked like it was under intelligent control. That is my 2 cents. Did anyone from NASA attempt to explain this at all? Let
me guess, ice or space debris, right? Never seen ice or space debris move quite like that.
edit on 16pm30pm5091 by data5091 because:
insertion
Hang on one god dam minute, I have never seen that clip, as its rolling I am thinking pfft, if its flight path changes then we might have
something................OMG
Do we know any more than that, if feels like a to good to be true
I first thought its flight path was just diminishing into the distance but there sure looks like a turn
When I first came to UFOlogy (I'm a young pup in this field) in 2013,
I didn't know for certain whether alien craft had visited Earth or
not.
I thought that perhaps, SOME of what people experience was just
more of the same stuff that I'd experienced since I was a child ---
so called "spiritual stuff".
But I investigated and investigated with passion.
I even "summoned" a BTUFO using "spiritual technique" to see if it
could be done --- (apparently it could).
All I ever found was so-called "spiritual stuff" (misunderstood
laws of physics).
So I have no case that I promote as being a "UFO".
IMHO, none of them are "UFOs".
A high percent are misidentifications, and now days, escpecially,
misinformation and self-delusion.
A very small percent SEEM to be of an 'occult' nature.... like my
persona close-range black triangle "UFO" encounter.
But as the saying goes... 'plenty of UFO reports... no UFOs'.
IMHO Roswell is the worst case ever, then followed by RFI.. both
were sensationalized at a later time.. with too many "thumbs
being put on the scale".. neither with any physical evidence or
reliable eye-witness reports (to speak of).
If you study "UFO" history.. you will find it all began with the
Theosophical movement.. and Scientology... having nothing
to do with science or reality.
Now days.. things are a little different.. there are different
people at the controls of the social control system..
I absolutely love your definition of “spiritual” in this sense. It perfectly sums up a massive portion of things people don’t understand.
I too am a new pup in the field, having only been studying heavily for five or six years. I’m sure everything I posted would either be yesterday’s
news or lackluster compared to other sources.
I absolutely love your definition of “spiritual” in this sense. It perfectly sums up a massive portion of things people don’t understand.
I too am a new pup in the field, having only been studying heavily for five or six years. I’m sure everything I posted would either be yesterday’s
news or lackluster compared to other sources.
Looking for possible trends is good.. and learning to ask questions is great.. a good question
is worth a 100 statements of "fact" and infinite number of assumptions based on nothing but
religious yearnings.
If you ask 'self-appointed experts' questions. that might lead to something good... but you'll
find that most 'experts' get angry if you ask them challenging questions.. that's because they
don't like their unchallenged assumptions and religious yearnings to be challenged..
practice on me if you want.. or Mirageman. He likes to be asked questions.. if he really likes
you.. he might make a cartoon strip of you!
sts-114 definitely one of the more interesting shuttle videos.
one of these years we might even get the date/time of the event so we can obtain context data such as digital autopilot [DAP] response and RCS
thruster firings in that time frame.
originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: gortex
....: Did anyone from NASA attempt to explain this at all? Let me guess, ice or space debris, right? Never seen ice or space debris move quite like
that.
Nobody's made the effort because the promoters of the video refuse to give the date/time of the video. So the NASA-sourced version has never been
obtained.
BTW we saw ice flakes behave that way often under the influence of thruster plumes and water spray clouds from the flash evaporator, from the waste
water dump ports, from the airlock. That's how the notorious STS-48 zig-zagger was definitively explained [see link below], maybe that's why nobody
wants any real spaceflight experts to be able to do the same on this one so they prevent the investigation by concealing the time tag.
1. I've always liked the story of the Hickson-Parker Pascagoula abduction. Doesn't involve stereotypical gray aliens. No need for anyone to be
hypnotized to "remember" anything. The secret recording of them still totally freaked out from their encounter is icing on the cake.
2-3. A photo or video can be entertaining, but without a piece of hard evidence that is clearly linked to a UFO by a strong chain of evidence and
proven by independent experts to be "alien," it's all conjecture. Nobody can tell me that they know about and can recognize every single experimental
or top secret aircraft flown in the world.
Not much to show, really, for nearly 7 decades of modern investigation.
Not to poop on the video, since it is interesting regardless of my opinion, but wouldn't it make sense if there were two objects as there appear to
be?
One is somewhat stationary, until the bright one approaches it. As the bright one approaches from right to left, the stationary dim object, begins
moving left to right, towards the center gravity path of the bright object. (Expected by gravitational interaction)
As the dim object flings to the right, due to being disturbed by the bright object, the dim object pulls and acts on the bright object. The bright
objects' right to left trajectory slows, until nearly stopping, before being pulled back towards the dim object, that exited, stage right. Then it
happily continues on it's new trajectory of left to right, chasing the dim object.
Think of that as two object interacting via gravitational forces, and the movement looks nearly predicted, by typical physics, and not "manned".
I like my interpretation, but that doesn't make me correct. Feel free to add additional comments or correct any misthoughts on my part.
edit on
17-9-2018 by Archivalist because: Wording n stuff
Not to poop on the video, since it is interesting regardless of my opinion, but wouldn't it make sense if there were two objects as there appear to
be?....
Things look weird enough in space, that's a reasonable suggestion that can be tested. But more to the point would be to determine where the local
illumination was coming from [where is the sun relative to the camera's line-of-sight] and what was going on in the minutes before and after this
sequence. That's the sort of thing Stubbs and other shuttle-video folks prevent us from finding out.