Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

a reply to: mirageman

Who cares re the Beach boys. Maybe we should talk about the binary instead?

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Yep who cares.....

Who do you believe in this case?

a reply to: mirageman

Who do you believe in this case?

I have to go the evidence route MM with all of them. Its a public case and the players are alive.

John was compensated for his injuries.

The binary is tricky as there is no evidence to support the claims Jim made no matter how sincere he may be. Will Gary's findings ever demonstrate what Jim did and how he received the claimed code, even if Gary produces something profound?

a reply to: Baablacksheep

It was more of a rhetorical question, Baa. But you aren't wrong.

There are so many ridculous stories, conflicting testimonies, changes of allegiance, nasty public spats and obvious jealousy of who is top dog on the Rendle Sham. Maybe it is all by design to keep people so far from the real truth that they wouldn't even know it if it was presented right in front of their eyes. Rendlesham has been the template for TTSA's divide and conquer of ufology.

I'm expecting a pantomime for the 40th anniversary.

I was unaware how sordid the Larry Warren side of this had become. I guess he is pretty tightly linked with that bathtub woman and her husband. Lots of disturbing threats of violence and other things.

Makes everything else seem sane by comparison.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm expecting a pantomime for the 40th anniversary.

We can be sure several more books will be out before the grand pantomime MM.

Of course the usual spats and dramas , though its wise they settle down a bit imo.

Maybe we will get a Xmas special even?

a reply to: coursecatalog

Makes everything else seem sane by comparison.

Not really.

there is so much discourse within RFI because the powers that be have amplified a spat between researchers and turned it into a toxic mess and instead of getting reasonable and logical answers to the mystery, although there have been a few over the years, with all the infighting I doubt will will get one. a reply to: mirageman

a reply to: wobbs62

Well the new book by Jim and Gary appears to be still going pretty well. I have yet to read anything negative about it. So that element seems to be pretty positive looking at how people have reacted. The binary is still under review so it seems, but end of the day, I just am not so sure if people are truly worried about any of this. It really has become so toxic and there looks to be no end in sight. Anyway one will have to see where it all leads end of the day. There is also book two to come from Gary Osborn.

a reply to: mirageman

Look at your face MM !!!

I won't be buying any more books on the subject as it seems that some people are just trying to squeeze out, a few dollars more.
On another topic, it looks like people are waking up to the fact that Nick pope is not the world renowned expert on the subject as he likes to portray himself as, been exaggerating and telling pokies for too long has old nick. a reply to: Baablacksheep

a reply to: wobbs62

What porkies has Pope told. A lot of rumours out there.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Well the main one is, that he was the head of the ufo department at the mod, when he was actually a junior clerk that answered enquiries from the public.
There's a video that debunks all of his claims on u tube but mm could tell you about mr pope and his job at mod.

a reply to: wobbs62

Yes. That is not new info though.

the video is on u tube, it deals with his claim that he was the head of ufo project at mod and is called , Nick pope exposed, it's 2.53 long by joe ufomcg,
Sorry I couldn't get link up. a reply to: Baablacksheep

a reply to: wobbs62

It sounds like old hat to me?

iLL add one more tidbit to the pile of info here. The rendlesham forest foia papers are the least censored of them all,also they were the easiest to get,as opposed to other papers. It seems uncle sams mind control tech is extraordinary. If it came from out there im interested, if it came from some nazi or other crazy scientist mind i dont care

I'll also pitch in with a little vignette.

Has anyone, to anybody's knowledge, gone down the Forestry Commission path? Seeing as they, the Forestry Commission, turned-up a matter of days later and cut-swath to the trees around the supposed landing area due to an aggressive tree disease. Allegedly.

A FOI request to the Forestry Commission could throw some light on this situation, maybe? Maybe not.

Who instructed the Forestry Commission to cut that particular stand of trees? Who discovered that that particular stand of trees was in danger, and particularly why that stand of trees and not others merely meters away? What was the disease that was such a danger that it required felling of trees so quickly?

Let's say someone with an interest in this case had a family member who worked for the Forestry Commission who's remit just happened to cover the whole of Norfolk, Suffolk & Essex, at a managerial level. And let us presume that that person had asked said family member if there was anything they could tell them with regard to the questions posed above, quietly, off 'the record' if you like.

And then, what are we to think when said family member will no longer respond to the inquirer, when the inquirer hears at some later date, from a different family member, that the Forestry Commission employee has found themselves in some sort of trouble? That the inquirer then starts to notice some very, very strange things. Being followed and photographed, blatantly. Wife being followed and stopped in the street/car park and asked strange questions by unknown people. Vehicles parked opposite house with 2 and 3 occupants for hours upon hours.

What would one think then?

One might start to think, that even 38 years and some months after the 'event', that there may be a whole lot more to this than simply lights in the sky, of a prank gone wrong, of a distant lighthouse, a story of bored base personnel.

originally posted by: TotoMesch

I'll also pitch in with a little vignette.

Has anyone, to anybody's knowledge, gone down the Forestry Commission path? Seeing as they, the Forestry Commission, turned-up a matter of days later and cut-swath to the trees around the supposed landing area due to an aggressive tree disease. Allegedly.

UFO group SCUFORI visited the forest in late September 1982 (before the story was made public the following year) to perform a preliminary investigation of the supposed landing area, assisted by Dot Street, the latter convinced that UFO radiation had killed off all life in the vicinity, but SCUFORI had other ideas...

It was noticed that buried beneath all the debris of leaves and branches were stumps of tree trunks. A closer look at these revealed that a saw had been the responsible instrument. The forest had obviously been developed to provide wood, and therefore the trees had been cultivated in a certain way. It seemed probable that trees that once stood in the area had been cut down and taken away. Furthermore, the dead branches which were scattered about had obviously been stripped off the main trunk and discarded as they were of little use.

Searching further, the team found other similar areas in the forest, away from the alleged landing area they were first shown by Dot Street...

It was obvious that this area and the previous one had been subjected to the same process - tree felling - and not due to the landing of some kind of craft... Dot was not very happy at SCUFORI's findings but agreed with them.

So, it seems tree felling was a regular occurrence, and the alleged landing area in question - or ANY landing area for that matter - would have been nonchalantly included in a routine felling procedure for business purposes rather than anything conspiratorial. They may not have even been aware of any UFO incident, but if they did know and spoke to the Suffolk Police, they'd have been told that nothing unusual was seen when cops arrived at the area on Boxing Day morning 1980, other than just a lighthouse beacon and rabbit-scratchings.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

they also had to keep the trees at a certain height for security reasons