Brian Dunning on Rendlesham , page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 9-1-2009 @ 06:40 AM by Europa733

Good morning ATS-ers,

Brian Dunning wrote a report regarding the 1980 Rendlesham UFO events :

skeptoid.com...

If you do not agree and find inconsistenties & bias or anything you noticed
that you think is not right. Go ahead and say it.

Here is a pretty good link about this event(s) : www.ufoevidence.org...

ATS links :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you in advance.

Cheers,
Europa

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 07:11 PM by waveguide3

It's an interesting piece of investigative journalism and should be considered by anyone trying to make sense of the Rendlesham events. Unfortunately, I doubt this forum will readily understand or accept such rationalism. I've responded to your post to prevent it dropping off the bottom, but I'm pretty sure it'll soon sink again. We really don't enjoy reading stuff like this on ATS.

The period between our two posts speaks volumes I think.

WG3

[edit on 9-1-2009 by waveguide3]

reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 07:55 PM by ufo reality

He can write all the reports he wants. I believe the testimony of my good friend Jim Penniston who was "THERE".

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 01:21 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by Europa733

Thank you for sharing the article. It is nice to read another look at what happened at Rendlesham. I have always thought the second sighting was the lighthouse, and the case is made in the article that it was. I also did not know Sgt Penniston changed his story and did not write notes during his first alleged encounter with the object.

reply posted on 10-1-2009 @ 02:08 PM by Europa733

Originally posted by waveguide3
It's an interesting piece of investigative journalism and should be considered by anyone trying to make sense of the Rendlesham events. Unfortunately, I doubt this forum will readily understand or accept such rationalism. I've responded to your post to prevent it dropping off the bottom, but I'm pretty sure it'll soon sink again. We really don't enjoy reading stuff like this on ATS.

The period between our two posts speaks volumes I think.

WG3

[edit on 9-1-2009 by waveguide3]

Hi there,

Unfortunatly, you are right, but maybe it's because I only presented it without pointing any elements that we could discuss and also maybe it takes more than 20 mn to read everything.

Anyway, Kidflash said it well : "it's always good to read another look..."

That's a good attitude.

I do not agree with everything he said and there's a lack of demonstrations and data about the lighthouse(s) & surroundings but I need more time on this one because it sure is a rather complicated case, so I kind of understand why some of our members did not respond yet.

Cheers you guys.
Europa

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 01:50 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by Europa733

With the second sighting the next day, every time I hear the recording of the base commander, I think about the lighthouse and its revolving light. I will have to find an older book about this sighting and read it to see what has been changed since the advent of the cable channels. I started to have my doubts when an airmen stated this was also a case of alien contact. Whenever a case keeps getting new information, it deserves a good scrutinized look. There are so many cases that are much better than this one, and yet this gets a lot of publicity. There was no radar contact with the object, and that should also raise questions.

I am also troubled by Penniston's embellished takes on what happened. This may be a case that is proven to be a hoax, and many in the UFO community (including myself) will be bitten in the rear on this one. Diligent research is needed, not a glossing over of facts.

I also must point out that the base commander was not in charge of the wing or anything other than base maintenance back then. It was a post given to a colonel or senior lt colonel. I am not taking away what he reported, but I think too many in the UFO community stress the importance of his job, when it was not that big during that time.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by kidflash2008]

reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 03:42 PM by ufo reality

I just don't see how they could mistake that for a UFO. Being based there, I'm sure they saw that lighthouse light often and in multiple weather conditions.

reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 01:52 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by ufo reality

In the article, many airmen state they did not know about the lighthouse, and did not take that into consideration. Also, when you listen to what Lt Col Halt describes, it does sound like the revolving light of a lighthouse beacon. Add in the fog, and the light from the beacon could make it look mysterious.

The article raises a lot of questions on what was really seen on the first day. This is a case that UFO researchers love, yet they have not done real research on it. The answers seem very down to earth, especially if Sgt Penniston embellished his story.

Pages: ^^TOP^^