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

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I'ts not that way at all.

It's other people who I am friends with, who have massive,
voluminous knowledge of each possible little nit about
each individual hour of the RFI timeline and all the
people involved.

There's just been more direct players of the RFI 3 act
play coming through this thread, than I expected..
it's unique on ATS.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: SkywatcherUK

Trolls?

Just in case you are Andrew (and that's what you are really embarrassed about) then you should know that at certain times the trolls have been much, much worse to those who dare criticise the gospel of Popular Ufotainment (Backed by 3 letter boys back in Uncle Sam's backyard). Understand who your friends really are and that some of us on here actually admire the work put into that book.

Of course if none of that's true then;

Why would any more posts you make have to involve Andrew or his family?

Why would your future posts induce further distress upon his family?

I sincerely hope all is well with Andrew.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I bought a copy on kindle the one day it was on the market.

If anything happens to that copy, I will take amazon to court.

Kev

Telling us what books you own is hardly contributing, can you summarise what it is about Andrew Pike's theories that you like?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
And why hasn't Pike just posted it online himself after all these years? Hardly an impossible proposal of he's keen to get the word out. What happened when Isaac Koi contacted him about this (or vice versa)? Why did Penniston get ants in his pants about it?

It was Issac contacting Pike, he posted his email/letter to Pike on a thread discussing the book before the second run...I didn't save the link, sorry. It is difficult to know why Penniston and Halt would be upset about the book, particularly without reading it (them and me). I presume, as that is all I can do under the circumstances, that there is a significant conflict between the Penniston and Halt narractives and the ones Pike proposes or alternatively, or at least they thought there was (if they haven't read it how would they know?). Or, alternatively, it reveals or hints at something that Halt and Penniston have known all along and which shows up any subterfuge that they may or may not have been involved in to conceal that information. I don't know, and I find such wild speculation tedious given that those that have read the book are equally tight lipped. Perhaps it's just hard to understand.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I'd like to compare RFI with the Colares, Brazil incident.

The Colares incident had all the hallmarks of people being drugged with
hallucinatory substances, while others were exposed to radiation.

Sound familiar?

Colares was in 1977...

I don't see anything to suggest those involved were drugged, although they may have been hallucinating that could be explained by exposure to radiation. That the Colares incident occurred at a time when the area was under going massive intrusion by western industrialisation processes and that the year before work had begun on a huge hyroelectric dam could suggest some kind of operation to undermine and depopulate the indigenous peoples who so strongly objected to the intrusion, and with good reason the long term effect of those projects has been devastating.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
There seems to be substantive info - and not just from Chris Armold - pointing to Halt and a team first plodding through the forest for hours on end on the SECOND night (26th - 27th) but seeing nothing. Presumably Penniston's 'landing site' was the focus. Was Tamplin's emotional 'breakdown' the event that inspired the trek, or an incidental detail?

What's odd or rather what is sticking in my head, is that when you sync the tape with the lighthouse, it does appear that it is the lighthouse light that they're describing. It fits perfectly (to my untrained eye and ear) but if they saw nothing on the second night then obviously it can't have been the lighthouse (unless for some reason it got shut off on that particular night, the bulb went maybe), right? In which case though, doesn't that suggest that whatever they did see was mimicking the lighthouse?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

A problem with your idea is how could some of the events be orchestrated? There were reports of clearly structured crafts in the skies and, on several occasions, actual people in the craft. Nobody had this level of technology then and maybe not even today.

It's something I thought about a few years ago. 1970s helis were noisy; the CIA stealth ones were quieter in terms of travelling and not so quite when hovering. So I asked myself how could a prop be hanging in the air silently? In another example, the army investigators were concealed behind trees on a riverbank with some silent, brightly-lit object moving slowly nearby. IIRC they 'felt' it was watching them.

I've also often wondered about the chains of communication. For instance, something like the CIA will employ local people to sow dissent or work as spies/fifth columnists. It's well documented. I wonder if it was possible to use locals as false witnesses? Nobody outside Belem would know if some purported witness was really a local. It's about the best way I can think of to explain the logic gap between silent aircraft and seemingly sincere multiple witnesses who saw them. The Stanford guys were an amplifier for this type of mischief imo.

It still doesn't explain the reports by Hollanda and it seemed to have played a part in unravelling his mind. Like RFI, it's an easy way to tie a mind in knots whilst always offering perpetually delayed gratification. It's been my experience that no satisfaction will come from these reports no matter how intellectually addictive they can be. Saying that, I'm still trying to kick the habit and have it down to almost nothing. Each to their own though.

I havent read Pikes book and cannot find it anywhere, not even in PDF format

I am probably late to this party about this element but have only just come across it and I bet its been covered in the previous thread many years ago, but what was peoples take of the SSOPRA angle in regards to Rendlesham?

a reply to: pigsy2400

I am probably late to this party about this element but have only just come across it and I bet its been covered in the previous thread many years ago, but what was peoples take of the SSOPRA angle in regards to Rendlesham?

It was mentioned on a number of occasions in the old thread

This theory that the RFI was a some form of exercise was criticised by Nick Pope, John Alexander and Jim Penniston and others. Just the sort of people you'd expect to say exactly that if there was such an exercise.

a reply to: mirageman

They came out speed did Alexander and Pope. What they say is on Jims formal web site. I recall it well.

Here is what Alexander said.

Col John B. Alexander, (Ret), responds:

"Nonsense. Your explanation does not fit the facts - four decades of them.
That's hardly a DNA experiment.
This is ergofusion, typical of the field. There is nothing in the document
you sent that in any way relates to the Bentwaters case. As indicated in my
earlier email, unusual events at Bentwaters preceded the now famous
two-three days, and have continued up until recently, long after the base
was closed. Making a case that it was a psychological experiment (which
others have done as well) just doesn't accommodate the facts. In fact, I
doubt that we currently have the capability to recreate the incident as
described by the large number of witnesses."

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Baablacksheep

I'ts not that way at all.

It's other people who I am friends with, who have massive,
voluminous knowledge of each possible little nit about
each individual hour of the RFI timeline and all the
people involved.

There's just been more direct players of the RFI 3 act
play coming through this thread, than I expected..
it's unique on ATS.

Thanks for your explantion.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I wasn't being mysterious.

I'ts the same stuff that has been discussed before.

Andrew did a bang up job describing unusual plasma / weather
occurrences that match up in places with RFI witness testimony.

A good example is the dripping metal effect.

If Andrew Pike was right.. RFI was nothing special at all.. and

all the 'overreaction' was just possibly due to standing orders
of some kind.

Like MM, I respect the near genius of the book. It was before
it's time.

Kev

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

As you say... the CIA often stepped in to help local allies
do dirty work.

There's even a memo where the CIA explains how using
local superstition to 'mind control' the natives is a very
effective trick.

(ref: "The Grays have been framed"
possibly the most illuminating UFO book I've ever read.)

It would seem that if one researches countries with a warm
relationship with the USA, it's not unusual to find people
claiming that MKultra type activities occurred there.

Just a few that I've checked:

1) Puerto Rico ('chupa chupa')
2) Brazil ('chupa chupa')
3) South Africa (still studying)
4) UK (still studying)

I think that a basic claim that I've heard, that there are more
"UFO events" in NATO countries might actually hold some water.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Although I don't believe the USA has the personnel (or brains) to choreograph so many reports, it remains curious how the 'phenomenon' seems to be centred on the USA. There's been efforts by the 'UFO community' to play up the international equality of sightings, but anyone can see from what data we have that it's not the case and never has been. Too many ufologists have sought to add a greater scale to the reports to leverage credibility and pursue 'disclosure' and all that malarkey.


If anything, it appears that UFO reports decrease in number the further away from US airbases one gets. I'm being a little bit cheeky with that comment, but it bears thinking about. Not that I'm saying causation and correlation are strictly welded together either. Just throwing the idea out there.

a reply to: Kandinsky

There's no question for me personally, that there is a 'phenomenon',
which yes, does at times does appear as "UFOs".. or ham sandwiches..
or the virgin mary or whatever..

But it's also obvious to me that the CIA has a massive (endless really,
as they sell drugs all over the world to self-fund) budget.

The markers for their involvement seems clear in a large number of
cases.

But I agree.. I don't believe that they are draining blood from marsupial
opposums in new zealand and all the other craziness that's going on.

As you your self often say... the "UFO phenomenon" is probably due to
multiple explanations.

Between drugs and hypnosis and project palladium we can probably
explain 50% of all unusual sightings and events.

It would also be quite interesting, as I told Jacques Vallee.. if it was
in the act of faking "UFOs" that "something" was discovered that was
not fake.

That's what I was told by a third party some time ago.

As for the proximity to US Bases.. it seems people assume that it's
black aircraft involved.. well I disagree 100%.

Military bases are certainly used by the CIA.. and are often
brimful of chemical depos and more importantly radar/
microwave towers of (possibly) unusual configuration.

You don't even need 'black project craft' to screw with
people's minds.. or to entice a phenomenon..

Kev

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

What's odd or rather what is sticking in my head, is that when you sync the tape with the lighthouse, it does appear that it is the lighthouse light that they're describing. It fits perfectly (to my untrained eye and ear) but if they saw nothing on the second night then obviously it can't have been the lighthouse (unless for some reason it got shut off on that particular night, the bulb went maybe), right? In which case though, doesn't that suggest that whatever they did see was mimicking the lighthouse?

It's enough to cause a nose-bleed, isn't it, KT?

And when Halt's team reached the field on the third night, Nevels has stated they saw the object "sitting over in the farmer's field about 200 yards away" and now very similar to Burrough's description on the first night - a red/orange sphere with blue lights swirling in a red/orange beam, with an underlying white light. However, it disappeared as soon as he and Halt (both leading the party) climbed the fence, their attention now directed towards lights in the sky. Was Nevel's comment the "landing" Halt mentioned to Burroughs later?

Bustinza described a house-sized machine that materialised when a red light descended and exploded over a yellow mist (the tape mentions a yellow mist in the forest beforehand). Was his red light the same one they were following through the woods before it transformed into Nevels' description in the farmer's field, and Bustinza simply over-estimated the size? Like Bustinza's account, Halt's memo mentions a red light exploding, but it's missing from the tape. Was there also a yellow mist in the field beforehand?

Or is Bustinza referring to a more major event in the second farmer's field, entirely missing from Halt's tape after 3.30am?


(Larry Warren's story IS Bustinza's story - not saying Larry is lying, just that we can ignore his POV since Bustinza encapsulates his entire account anyway, even adding the "USAF repairing the machine" angle which was never Larry's. And Bustinza always insisted Halt rather than Williams was at the 'landing'.)

A very good evening to all (depending on timeline)

A great summary of the first thread MM on the first few pages to this thread.

As soon as I am fully repaired, I will be covering aspects of my theories/thoughts/ideas as well as more documentation relating to
AdamE's Wooderful Theory

(The title made me smile)

originally posted by: Kandinsky
A problem with your idea is how could some of the events be orchestrated? There were reports of clearly structured crafts in the skies and, on several occasions, actual people in the craft. Nobody had this level of technology then and maybe not even today.

I don't think that was my idea.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I've also often wondered about the chains of communication. For instance, something like the CIA will employ local people to sow dissent or work as spies/fifth columnists. It's well documented. I wonder if it was possible to use locals as false witnesses? Nobody outside Belem would know if some purported witness was really a local. It's about the best way I can think of to explain the logic gap between silent aircraft and seemingly sincere multiple witnesses who saw them. The Stanford guys were an amplifier for this type of mischief imo.

Wouldn't even have to be an intelligence agency, most corporate interests are only looking to produce the 5% return dividend to their investors and they will often use any means to ensure that they meet that expectation. If they are forced to rehome those who are displaced by their operations and by rehoming them they will cut into that 5% then they may seek other means by which to alleviate that financial burden. Similarly with any environmental damage or contamination that they may be responsible for, if that cuts into the return then they will go bankrupt in order to avoid responsibility, or find other ways to remove potential witnesses.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
It still doesn't explain the reports by Hollanda and it seemed to have played a part in unravelling his mind. Like RFI, it's an easy way to tie a mind in knots whilst always offering perpetually delayed gratification. It's been my experience that no satisfaction will come from these reports no matter how intellectually addictive they can be. Saying that, I'm still trying to kick the habit and have it down to almost nothing. Each to their own though.

I don't know enough about the case to get down to specifics but you only have to look at what was going on in that area at the time (and since) and that the building of hydroelectric dams was completely driven by western interest to serve western industries set up there, to see that a lot of money was going to be flying around in back-handers and money seems to never cease to motivate even those who have no understanding of it previously. As well as in the wider sphere as a means to get officials to turn a blind eye. I don't see any need for the CIA to be involved but much would depend on which corporations were involved I would have thought, especially if they weren't even North American. I haven't dug that deep, my cup already runneth a little too full...

I suppose it depends upon how you're inclined. We all, in the end, see what we want to see, I personally have a tendency (in these things) to see corrupt humans before I see anything super-natural or para-normal. My loss? Maybe, maybe not, it's just the way it is, I don't feel as though this means I should automatically exclude the perspectives of those that see things otherwise, quite the contrary really.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
(Larry Warren's story IS Bustinza's story - not saying Larry is lying, just that we can ignore his POV since Bustinza encapsulates his entire account anyway, even adding the "USAF repairing the machine" angle which was never Larry's. And Bustinza always insisted Halt rather than Williams was at the 'landing'.)

It's all a terrible muddle. La Plume was insistent that these were all trained and seasoned military personnel and not "key stone cops" and yet, they do all seem to have turned into head-less chickens. I am leaning more and more towards this being an event that threw them into dissarray and which could not be explained rationally, which in turn may have piqued the interest of external bodies who for one reason or another sought clarification and confirmation by examining the scene and possibly subjecting witnesses to intense forms of questioning. Neither of which, I suspect, that they found to produce anything even remotely satisfying.

I have no difficulty with the contrasting "sightings" if I work on the principle that everyone is telling the truth (as they know it), it only starts to break down when I begin cherry picking who may or may not be "right".