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 Ministry of Defence's position on possible UFO crash into wind turbine at Conisholme in Lincoln

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
Well there is a Taranis project in the UK, so it could be this and nothing more.


Again, I never said we didn't. Just pointed out the test flights are due to occur in Australia. Jesus, read the original thread and stop being so provocative.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
There's such a thing as dis-information though. Have they found that turbine blade yet? There were also several locals in the area who saw lights in the sky. I believe they're not telling the whole truth.


While no one was there to witness the event as it happened, the preponderance of evidence leans towards it being a mechanical failure. Do you have any evidence that the official explanation is disinformation? If not, you are speculating and confusing the speculation for evidence to get the conclusion you want.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Ok ... first of all , they found all the components, they have tested them and came up with material fatigue as the cause of the high speed deconstruction of the turbine. As for test runs of secret aircraft, wether or not there were such things going on , we cant PROVE it any how. Further more, witness reports suggested an advanced craft did they ? Well I for one would love to know who exactly these people are, and what thier area of expertise in aeronautics is. Answer me this ok ? If you are a milkman , and you see someone collapse, are you going to diagnose the patient and treat them ? Or are you going to call 999 and have someone with some KNOWLEGE do the diagnostics? I have the same issue with random reports from A.N. Other Random hyping up an expirience after the fact with unsupportable IMPRESSIONS they got from the incedent at hand. Eyewitness testimony is bloody unreliable at the best of times , let alone in the dark where odd lights are concerned. Now if you want to show me someone in aeronautics, the military , the police , air traffic control , who say they saw this thing, then by all means show me the testimony . But dont waste time with nothingy witnesses with no expirience. Waste of time . TOTAL waste of time.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
Just a quick question: do you have a link or something to a website detailing these laws? Because what you say kinda goes against the information quoted in the article i just posted.


Read the original thread. And plus, research instead of just quoting the Daily Telegraph. It's kinda amateurish.

Ground testing, which was schedule for early this year, is only restricted to the airbase (circle the base and lands again). Taranis is scheduled for full flight trials in 2010 - i.e test runs.

MOD contradicted itself.

Could be a NATO project for all we know.



Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
Well there is a Taranis project in the UK, so it could be this and nothing more.


Again, I never said we didn't. Just pointed out the test flights are due to occur in Australia. Jesus, read the original thread and stop being so provocative.


Look Chadwickus posted a link very early on in this thread to an earlier thread on this topic and i haven't seen anything in it that its to do with laws about such Taranis prototype testing etc. What original thread are you talking about? It would help a lot in getting to the point efficiently if you actually gave links to what you are specifically talking about -_- .

Secondly: I am not being "provocative", you are just being overly defensive- i never said that you said there wasn't a UK Taranis project.

Thirdly, i said early on that my Taranis link idea was a guess and a shot in the dark i.e. not a strongly held belief based on extensive research or anything like that.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Tokis Phoenix]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix

Originally posted by CrabPaste!!!

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix
The Taranis (an unmanned stealth bomber) was making test runs in a site right next to the wind turbine site, i say that this is probably the cause of the broken wind turbine.


Source ???

I'd guess you're talking BS myself.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by CrabPaste!!!]


Actually i do have a source;

"Residents claimed to have seen bright flashing spheres in the skies near Louth, Lincolnshire, where the 290ft turbine was mangled in a mystery collision.

Ministry of Defence insiders have reportedly said the UFOs could be unmanned stealth bombers on test flights.

The black delta-wing craft, called Taranis, is understood to have been making test runs on the coastal bombing ranges at Donna Nook and North Coates, which are right next to the site of the wrecked wind turbine.

Taranis is about the same size as the Hawk jet trainers used by the Red Arrows at nearby RAF Scrampton - it is being developed by BAe Systems to deliver bombs in battlefields.";

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Your grammar doesn't add up ("I'd guess you're talking BS myself"??).


If you know the grammar doesn't add up, then you obviously understand it ;-)

Your sources are BS.

"Ministry of Defence insiders have reportedly said the UFOs could be unmanned stealth bombers on test flights."

Really......Who are they then?

Like I said, BS sources, BS info, BS opinion.

RAF Scrampton LOL It's Scampton FFS



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
There's such a thing as dis-information though. Have they found that turbine blade yet? There were also several locals in the area who saw lights in the sky. I believe they're not telling the whole truth.


While no one was there to witness the event as it happened, the preponderance of evidence leans towards it being a mechanical failure. Do you have any evidence that the official explanation is disinformation? If not, you are speculating and confusing the speculation for evidence to get the conclusion you want.


I quote the original article you posted. "Locals near the farm in Conisholme, Lincolnshire had reported seeing orange-yellow spheres trailing octopus-like "tentacles" on the night of the incident, sparking speculation that it had it had fallen victim to low-flying aliens." There may of been no witnesses to the "crash" but you must understand many including myself think that these lights had something to do with it.

I fail to see how you think I'm confusing the speculation for evidence to get the conclusion I want. Really its the other way round. You've chosen to believe the "official" explanation, I however think the MoD aren't telling the whole truth, they've done it before take for example the Rendlesham Forest case.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrabPaste!!!If you know the grammar doesn't add up, then you obviously understand it ;-)

Your sources are BS.

"Ministry of Defence insiders have reportedly said the UFOs could be unmanned stealth bombers on test flights."

Really......Who are they then?

Like I said, BS sources, BS info, BS opinion.

RAF Scrampton LOL It's Scampton FFS


Says the man who doesn't use a single source to back up his posts lol
.
Dear oh dear, you are quite the little offensive one aren't you.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
"Locals near the farm in Conisholme, Lincolnshire had reported seeing orange-yellow spheres trailing octopus-like "tentacles" on the night of the incident, sparking speculation that it had it had fallen victim to low-flying aliens."There may of been no witnesses to the "crash" but you must understand many including myself think that these lights had something to do with it.


I bolded the operative word in the above quote. (EDIT: or did I...?)


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I fail to see how you think I'm confusing the speculation for evidence to get the conclusion I want.


Because some people reported seeing something strange in the vicinity and because you feel the MoD lied about Rendlesham, you draw the conclusion that something bizarre happened to the windmill, without having any actual evidence that the events are related.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
Really its the other way round. You've chosen to believe the "official" explanation


You are right, I have due to a preponderance of evidence. While there is a danger in an appeal to authority, in this case the authorities (the windmill manufacturer and insurer) investigated and found the damage to be caused by common (insofar as compared to extraterrestrials) mechnical failure. This compared to speculation by those who have investigated only so far as their computer and imagination will take them.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I however think the MoD aren't telling the whole truth, they've done it before take for example the Rendlesham Forest case.


And what evidence do you have for that? Whether they lied or not about Rendlesham does not matter. What evidence do you have they are lying in regards to this case?

Sure, you can dismiss the official explanation because someone sometime in the past has lied. But at that point, you are picking and choosing which witnesses and evidence you want to include to create your hypothesis. And UFO witnesses in the past have lied, so why not discard the UFO reports as well?

[edit on 2-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
"Ecotricity" is the company who set up the wind turbine park, and here is what Dale Vince OBE, Ecotricity founder, wrote in his blog February 10. The MOD is off the hook:


The slur on the driving/flying skills of all extra terrestrials was lifted today – first findings from the forensic examination of the damaged windmill bits are that it definitely wasn’t a collision of any kind. That lets the MOD off the hook too.

We’ve just had the interim report from ENERCON, the manufacturer of our wind turbines, and they say that they found ‘classic signs of fatigue failure’ in the ring of about 30 bolts, that usually hold the blades on.

Interestingly though they’ve ruled out material or other defect in the bolts themselves, judging that the bolt fatigue is more likely ‘effect’ than ’cause’ of the blade loss.

The attention has shifted now to the components on either side of the ring of bolts, the theory being that a failure somewhere else in the chain of components is at the root of things.

We’re expecting a final conclusion in a couple of weeks and hope to be able to publish the report in full here.

Meanwhile it’s sad but true to say it looks like we’ve not been visited by beings from another planet (unless you count the Sun reporters… ) and it wasn’t some kind of kill crazy flying tank from the MOD. A rather more mundane everyday kind of explanation appears to be emerging.

BTW this also means it wasn’t, def wasn’t, some kind of ball lightning or plasma – and of course not ice falling in cow sized lumps…

Shame in a way, the truth seems rather tame by comparison.

Cheers.

zerocarbonista.com...

Ecotricity's home website:
www.ecotricity.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
"Locals near the farm in Conisholme, Lincolnshire had reported seeing orange-yellow spheres trailing octopus-like "tentacles" on the night of the incident, sparking speculation that it had it had fallen victim to low-flying aliens."There may of been no witnesses to the "crash" but you must understand many including myself think that these lights had something to do with it.


I bolded the operative word in the above quote.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I fail to see how you think I'm confusing the speculation for evidence to get the conclusion I want.


Because some people reported seeing something strange in the vicinity and because you feel the MoD lied about Rendlesham, you draw the conclusion that something bizarre happened to the windmill, without having any actual evidence that the events are related.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
Really its the other way round. You've chosen to believe the "official" explanation


You are right, I have due to a preponderance of evidence. While there is a danger in an appeal to authority, in this case the authorities (the windmill manufacturer and insurer) investigated and found the damage to be caused by common (insofar as compared to extraterrestrials) mechnical failure. This compared to speculation by those who have investigated only so far as their computer and imagination will take them.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I however think the MoD aren't telling the whole truth, they've done it before take for example the Rendlesham Forest case.


And what evidence do you have for that? Whether they lied or not about Rendlesham does not matter. What evidence do you have they are lying in regards to this case?

Sure, you can dismiss the official explanation because someone sometime in the past has lied. But at that point, you are picking and choosing which witnesses and evidence you want to include to create your hypothesis. And UFO witnesses in the past have lied, so why not discard the UFO reports as well?


I have no evidence to suggest they (Insurance company etc...) are lying, but I simply don't believe them. Thats my opinion. Your taking what one person says or one company and comming to the conclusion that thats fact. I haven't stated that its a "UFO", stealth aircraft etc.... For all I know the official explanation could be true and I a bigger conspiracy nut than I already am. We've wondered slightly off topic. I was talking about the MoD letter I received. It just seems strange they haven't bothered investigating, instead sending me more of a disclaimer stating they don't investigate "matters or the question of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life forms". You have to admit when it first happened you would of expected the Military of Defence to be a bit more involved than they were.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I have no evidence to suggest they (Insurance company etc...) are lying, but I simply don't believe them.


You know, that is a definition of closed-mindedness. You will believe what you want to believe, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
Your taking what one person says or one company and comming to the conclusion that thats fact.


No, I am taking a preponderance of evidence; The investigation found that it was mechanical failure -- as opposed to no investigation and speculation on your end.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I haven't stated that its a "UFO", stealth aircraft etc....


Semantic games are unappealing and insulting. We are smarter than that.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life forms". You have to admit when it first happened you would of expected the Military of Defence to be a bit more involved than they were.


Why would they need to be?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Metal fatigue is a very good prospect.

Here is a photo, showing that, the nuts & bolts, getting ALL loose
is almost impossible. Do you see how MANY studs are there,
on the blade, on the right side ?

www.caller.com...

ALL the nuts can't have fallen all together, right ?
The studs could brake, fail, but NOT the nuts unscrew, all of them.
It's obvious horse-sense/good sense?
And I am quite sure that the nuts are wire-locked, as is done in planes.

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I have no evidence to suggest they (Insurance company etc...) are lying, but I simply don't believe them.


You know, that is a definition of closed-mindedness. You will believe what you want to believe, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
Your taking what one person says or one company and comming to the conclusion that thats fact.


No, I am taking a preponderance of evidence; The investigation found that it was mechanical failure -- as opposed to no investigation and speculation on your end.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
I haven't stated that its a "UFO", stealth aircraft etc....


Semantic games are unappealing and insulting. We are smarter than that.


Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
of the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life forms". You have to admit when it first happened you would of expected the Military of Defence to be a bit more involved than they were.


Why would they need to be?


I take it you're asking me why the MoD should of been more involved? Well for one when the story first broke nobody knew what was going on. After reports of unexplained lights in the sky I'm suprised it wasn't investigated whether or not the British airspace had been compromised especially with the heighten tensions with Russia.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


"they say that they found ‘classic signs of fatigue failure’ in the ring"
sounds unfortunate to say the least he he.


sorry could not resist.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
My opinion regards MoD involvement is this. There either was NONE because there was nothing on the radar/other airspace monitoring systems for them to react to , OR there was NONE because the threat from Russia is a tool that both the UK and Russia use to keep thier people fearing facing the world without governmental protection in place. Its a lie they tell so we continue to vote them in, or accept thier place in the world, when in fact government is what gets in the way of freedom, rather than being that which makes freedom possible.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbowman1990
After reports of unexplained lights in the sky I'm suprised it wasn't investigated whether or not the British airspace had been compromised...


Considering what many witnesses claim to have seen, it may be doubtful the MoD would take such a thing seriously. Also, if there was nothing unusual picked up by radar or satellites, they may not have found it a concern.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tokis Phoenix

Originally posted by CrabPaste!!!If you know the grammar doesn't add up, then you obviously understand it ;-)

Your sources are BS.

"Ministry of Defence insiders have reportedly said the UFOs could be unmanned stealth bombers on test flights."

Really......Who are they then?

Like I said, BS sources, BS info, BS opinion.

RAF Scrampton LOL It's Scampton FFS


Says the man who doesn't use a single source to back up his posts lol
.
Dear oh dear, you are quite the little offensive one aren't you.



1) I'm not the one making statements firstly without sources, then with BS carp when it's pointed out.

2) If I wanted a grammar lesson, I'd be on a different forum. But like I said, you understood the error, so you understand the point.

3) Stick to the topic and don't make any more personal attacks.

4) Your sources are unreliable BS. The blade failed due to fatigue, job jobbed.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Where does it sound like they know more than they are letting on?? Did I miss something here? They didn't even receive an official report on the incident there is no ambiguity anywhere. But hey you got 6 pages out of it more points for you! Good jorb!




Originally posted by chrisbowman1990




Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to know what the Ministry of Defence's position is upon the unexplained object that caused damage to the wind turbine in Lincolnshire. Has it been determined what caused the damage? Yours faithfully, C Bowman




Dear Mr Bowman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 9 February 2009 asking what the Ministry of
Defence's position was regarding the recent damage to a wind turbine in
Lincolnshire and whether the cause of the damage had been determined.

Firstly, it may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) examines any reports of 'unidentified flying objects' it receives
solely to establish whether what was seen might have some defence
significance; namely, whether there is any evidence that the United
Kingdom's airspace might have been compromised by hostile or
unauthorised air activity.

Unless there is evidence of a potential threat to the United Kingdom
from an external source, and to date no UFO report has revealed such
evidence, we do not attempt to identify the precise nature of each
sighting reported to us. We believe that rational explanations, such as
aircraft lights or natural phenomena, could be found for them if
resources were diverted for this purpose, but it is not the function of
the MoD to provide this kind of aerial identification service. It would
be an inappropriate use of defence resources if we were to do so.

The MoD does not have any expertise or role in respect of 'UFO/flying
saucer' matters or the question of the existence or otherwise of
extraterrestrial life forms, about which it remains totally open-minded.
I should add that to date, the MoD knows of no evidence which
substantiates the existence of these alleged phenomena.

Turning to this particular incident, I can confirm that it was not
officially reported to the MoD but, clearly, we were aware of the media
reports. We are not aware of any substantive evidence to suggest the
turbine was hit by a UFO and unless we receive clear physical evidence
of an aircraft or other object flying into the turbine, we would not
investigate the matter.

I hope this is helpful.

Paul Webb

RAF Bus Sec 13

Room 2E03

Spitfire Block

HQ Air Command

RAF High Wycombe

HP14 4UE

Tel: 01494 49 6254



Sounds like they know more than they are letting on. Just thought it would be of interest to you all.

Chris.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by chrisbowman1990]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by chrisbowman1990]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You're bang on mate, this whole thread is 100% bollox.

Please can it be locked.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by CrabPaste!!!]




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join