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.

 

Col Charles Halt says “extra-terrestrials” caused the close encounter at Rendlesham Forest air

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I served in the military for many years. Young soldier doesn't equate to ignorant.


They were directionaly ignorant at first, and ignorant in the use of the equipment they were using. Simple fact there.


Don't you think that they had perhaps seen that lighthouse probably many times in their time serving there?


Yes they had, as have others that I have talked to on base at that time. However, when they made that famous recording, their directions were off and they were unaware that they were in fact facing the lighthouse. Listen to link in my thread above.


Why were these sightings not happening on a regular basis, if it was something as simple as that?


The lighthouse lights were seen on many occasions, and on foggy nights it was rumored to be really cool looking, resulting on more than one occasion of radio banter about strange lights in the distance.


... there is imo, more to it than a lighthouse.


Yes, there may be, but the weight of the evidence does speak wonders about the case to me. One can't really take at face value the witness testimony, since it doesn't match the evidence, nor do they even agree with each other, or even agree if some who are major players in the story were even there.

Then there is the face that the witness stories have changed to be juicier over time.

All in all, I think this is an unremarkable case that has been blown up beyond most people's ability to dare have someone question it (as, it is part of the Holy Trinity of Ufology, lol)

I'll go hide in my corner now as I get flamed




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by tarifa37
Former Deputy Base Commander Col Charles Halt said “extra-terrestrials” caused the close encounter in Suffolk.... “The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since.

“I believe the objects that I saw at close quarters were extra-terrestrial in origin.”

Take note, please, that all this quote reveals is that he saw a device and he did not recognise it as built-here

That's not the same as knowing it was extraterrestrial in origin.


Ok but at the very least it means somebody is covering something up.
And that doesn't bother you at all ?
Sheep


Perhaps you'll note the next comment from me...


Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by alienesque he said it was manufactured and intelligently controlled...what possibilities does that leave us with?
man made craft..meaning we are being lied to regarding energy technologies
alien...meaning we are being lied to regarding...ermm...aliens..
either one gets my interest


I agree most wholeheartedly! Just making the point that his observation presents more than one possibility.


Just because I am not running around screaming "The Sky Is Falling" doesn't mean I'm not aware of the consequeces of that circumstance. If you'll check back, that is not the nature of this thread. I have my own theories of UFOs based upon some forty years of interest and research. How many people here can say that they actually wrote to Dr. Werner Von Braun himself, in 1966, asking for his take on things?

Now in a subsequent post you state:

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85 We humans are not dumb......just young and easily manipulated...


Two things...first, speak for yourself. Second? Don't call me a sheep, Sonny.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Yet another high ranking military officer comes forward. With all these testimonies, it's enough proof for me that we are being visited.

Good thread S&F.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Yes, there may be, but the weight of the evidence does speak wonders about the case to me. One can't really take at face value the witness testimony, since it doesn't match the evidence, nor do they even agree with each other, or even agree if some who are major players in the story were even there. Then there is the face that the witness stories have changed to be juicier over time. All in all, I think this is an unremarkable case that has been blown up beyond most people's ability to dare have someone question it (as, it is part of the Holy Trinity of Ufology, lol) I'll go hide in my corner now as I get flamed

Do you see yourself as some sort of martyr for the truth? Because you misunderstanding of this case is monumental

You have completely mixed up different groups of witnesses from different sightings, some who have undoubtedly embellished their testimony down the years, and then decided that , seemingly, all the witnesses did the same thing. They didn't , most of the key witnesses stories have not changed when it comes to the Halt testimony and Halt took the guy who came up with the lighthouse theory to where the site was and you could not see the lighthouse from there. That is documented on film, so are you denying that?

Lighthouses lights are a brilliant white not red, i should know , I've lain in bed watching them on holiday on numerous occasions.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Simple answer. It was.


It was obvious huh ? So which of the principle witnesses agree it was a mistaken lighthouse ? I know Halt doesn't buy that. Did you see the comment where they went out to the site and the skeptic who first postulated the lighthouse theory now admits it doesn't hold water ?

The lighthouse explanation is fricking WEAK. Did Penniston and Burroughs see the lighthouse ? Is that what they thought crashed in the woods the first night ? It doesn't fit the facts. They saw something and it wasn't a lighthouse.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I am surprised after all these years that someone with an interest in this case and who maybe lives in that area hasn't waited for a foggy night and gone up there with a camcorder ,to see if they can also see the light house from the exact same location .By filming any light effects made by the light house and shown to be visible in that wood could possible debunk or confirm the case more solidly.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Especially the part about the lighthouse. It is almost sad when you hear it, as it will dispel the majority of the utter tripe you read about this case on the internet.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]


Ummm seeing as I actually live here, I can say with all certainty that it was not the lighthouse and even the mere suggestion was pathetic. (Not digging at you, but the researchers that came up with this theory.) There is no way in hell you can mistake the light for a UFO. In the same way that you are frustrated with peoples 'ignorance', I get frustrated when people who have never been here, to personally confirm their 'facts', talk in such a matter of fact way about information they have gathered from a fair distance away. Come here, look at the lighthouse and see for yourself.


I am surprised after all these years that someone with an interest in this case and who maybe lives in that area hasn't waited for a foggy night and gone up there with a camcorder ,to see if they can also see the light house from the exact same location .By filming any light effects made by the light house and shown to be visible in that wood could possible debunk or confirm the case more solidly.


I've camped in the forest on many occasion but haven't yet filmed it at night. When I can get my hands on a camera then I'll make sure to film it for you guys.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by JennyJen]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarifa37
If this is true then it is truly amazing and reopens this very famous ufo case .


Thanks for posting tarifa37,
s&f
This is indeed a very important and interesting case.

I just want add this interview from Jeff Rense with Rendlesham Forest UFO case key witness Larry Warren and investigator Peter Robinson from 12-11-03.
Larry described in detail the amazing things he saw and experienced at the scene and how they try to shut him down due the use of force.

There are more then one really mind-blowing things happened there of where he speaks, but this beats them all.

At 01:03:23 Larry said the following.


Jim Penniston had communication with this phenomena, eh, eh, eh, it spook to him true that craft when he touched it.
Now I hope they deal with that one in the show.
But it said they are from the future, and this sound crasy, that eh, you know, they said, we are you, you know, from, you know, 5 and a half million years from the future.


Here is the interview.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

I am convinced that time travel is for some out there just like a walk in the park for us, but what if this could be true.
Well, enjoy the interview.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
For the latest I STRONGLY suggest you all do two things:

1)Go to and listen to the whole Paracast Podcast(IMO the "best" fringe radio with a skeptical bent to it). Scroll down to the past episodes to June 21st and the John Burroughs and Peter Robbins interview. www.theparacast.com...

2)Read the latest July 10th entry from Burroughs and the 2010 Reunion being planned: backtobentwaters.blogspot.com...

There is a bit of a rift with some of the witnesses and Col Halt. I think you'll find John Burroughs to come off as being very level headed and even admitting that the hypnosis he went under may be nonsense or planted.

The issue for me is how the OSI behaved. A lot more went on than the lighthouse--people would of been dismissed immediately for such nonsense if there was nuclear material being stored there. If servicemen were drugged or threatened then we have a bigger issue than reported. The response of the top brass is not surprising seeing how in every line of work the managers always talk sweet while trouble brews below--job security, pensions and jail time have a way of "conforming" people's rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I've been interested in UFOs for decades, but so far not a sliver of an extaterrestrial craft or convincing photo of an alien has come to light.


Exactly right. I'm right there with you. It seems that the more I've studied and looked beyond the common, sensationalistic aspects of any case, the less I know. The myth has grown out of control, such that everybody forgets about the weaknesses of the original cases on which the myth is based. And the bulk of people actually forget about interesting cases, simply because they don't fit the myth.

Ufology has been poisoned for decades, thanks to Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, and Rendelsham. And to some extent the Travis Walton and Whitley Streiber cases. High profile cases that are essentially hollow. I guess ufology was poisoned from the beginning, but it ain't getting any better.

It all gets very tiring.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts Folks, it is far past time to hook our brains back up and take this to the next level.


Ok. I'm listening. So what's the next level, in your opinion?


It was only a matter of time before this guy came storming in with his usual strident, naysaying rhetoric. It's awfully predictable and tiresome.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by longfade

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts Folks, it is far past time to hook our brains back up and take this to the next level.


Ok. I'm listening. So what's the next level, in your opinion?


It was only a matter of time before this guy came storming in with his usual strident, naysaying rhetoric. It's awfully predictable and tiresome.


Sorry to be predictable and tiresome, but which one of us are you slagging?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
It seems that the more I've studied and looked beyond the common, sensationalistic aspects of any case, the less I know. The myth has grown out of control, such that everybody forgets about the weaknesses of the original cases on which the myth is based. And the bulk of people actually forget about interesting cases, simply because they don't fit the myth.

Ufology has been poisoned for decades, thanks to Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, and Rendelsham. And to some extent the Travis Walton and Whitley Streiber cases. High profile cases that are essentially hollow. I guess ufology was poisoned from the beginning, but it ain't getting any better.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. When discussing UFOs rationally one feels like a persecuted minority.

Jacques Vallee, UFOlogist supreme, maybe the only non-delusional one of the bunch, threw up his hands in dismay at the end of decades and wrote a couple final books on the subject. After going to actual sites, tracking witnesses, discussing with experts, he concluded the field is swamped with con-artists and whack jobs.

There might be an unexplained phenomenon, but it has nothing to do with aliens in spaceships.

Myself I think there are 3 or more different phenomena that are all being lumped together with the expectation of the unknown being something science fictional.

100 years ago the explanations were ghosts and religious visitations.

An ATS member using the name "Rotwang17" is a folklorist and published an online paper in his own name explaining how the whole shebang has the characteristics of myth making more than scientific investigation.

Let me know if you want the link.

Mike





[edit on 13-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael 100 years ago the explanations were ghosts and religious visitations.

An ATS member using the name "Rotwang17" is a folklorist and published an online paper in his own name explaining how the whole shebang has the characteristics of myth making more than scientific investigation.

Let me know if you wan the link.

Mike


I'd be interested in that...I'm working on my own Unified Weirdness Theory.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Recommneded reading by

Jeffery A. Lindell
B.A. Indiana University Folklore Institute
Electronic Warfare Systems Analyst USAF (Ret.)
jeff.lindell@comcast.net

His paper is here:


Historical and Physiological Perspective of the Foo Fighters of World War II

jeff.lindell.home.comcast.net...


His opening thread on ATS is a good summation of his approach:


www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Rotwang17

I'm a folklorist and have primarily worked with folk-belief. This topic deals with the study of the supernatural. My interests lie in the realms of the fairies and of what the Grimm Brothers described as the creatures of lower mythology. Now, since almost all fairy beliefs have long been extinct, I am left with studying their nearest relative, aliens and UFOs. The similarities between the fairy and alien realms are closer than we would expect. By divorcing the specifics and context of contemporary UFO stories we can look at the structure of these tales, many of these legends are re-hashed fairy legends. Fairy-tales are not fairy legends, fairy-tales (Märchen -- Kinder Sagen] are formulaic stories traditionally told to children. Fairy legends are what we folklorists call Memorates, which is German for a remembrance or recounting. These are first-hand narratives involving real people's encounters with the supernatural. This is what I collect, memorates. The memorates which I have collected concern first-hand sightings of what have become known as foo fighters. Here is a sample of my research.

As you may well know, foo fighters were sightings of mysterious "balls of light" that appeared to chase night fighter and bomber crews over the night skies of Germany and Japan during the later part of the second world war. Before I embarked upon my search for these individuals whom had seen these things I was going to need documentation. Really, I needed to know who I was looking for. So I began by scouring all the UFO literature in the IU Folklore Library. I got in touch with as many Ufologists as I could and they all assured me that I would find no government documentation on the foo fighters, rather that the government was conspicuously covering up these sightings. Me being stubborn, I turned to the USAF historical museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, from there a David Menard, a document archivist, pointed me in all the right directions. In total, I was able to retrieve nearly 4500 pages of de-classified Army-Air Corp documents from Wright-Patterson AFB, Boling AFB, Maxwell AFB and the National Archives and Records Administration as well as from individual Squadron Historians and Squadron Commanders. He also put me in touch with the World War Two Night Fighters Association and the 20th Air Force Association.

So, this alleged government coverup was whole-heartedly due to the shoddy research habits of the Ufologists themselves. What I think is really important here is that this is a reflexive phenomenon on many different levels. The first, and most obvious, is that these Ufologist lacked the ability and the language skills needed to accurately request these documents from these archivists and document custodians. Secondly, they lacked even the most fundamental and basic knowledge of how and where these documents were housed and the nomenclature by which they were indexed. Thirdly, they truly lacked even the most basic knowledge concerning the phenomenology of these sightings and the esoteric language of nocturnal combat aviators. Fourthly, they relied on misinformation provided to them by other Ufologists. These are critical errors in research! Really, one wonders how they found any foo fighter sightings at all. My best summation is that the scant references that the bulk of the Ufologist found was due, in large part, to their "vacuum sweeping" gathering techniques. From my extensive experiences in dealing with Ufologists, one can be assured that the concept of methodology is just as alien as is the topic of their research.

Please forgive my snottyness here, but this is the heart and soul of the modern UFO cover-up conspiracy, purely amateur research. UFOs and foo fighters justifiably fall within the study of folklore and psychology, not the fields of physics and engineering. How would Stanton T. Friedman, a Nuclear Physicist, feel if a Folklorist began to lecture him on quantum mechanics? Now, let's put the shoe the other foot, what real expertise does a Nuclear Physicist share with a Folklorist who specializes in collecting ethnographic data which encompasses the construction of cognitive belief systems? Really now, we're talking apples and oranges aren't we? This type of reflection of intellectual chauvinism does nothing but fuel the furnace of conspiracy. Hell, I've been accused, on many occasion, of being an operative by the government, being sent out into the wilderness to aid and abet in this coverup. I even had to stop wearing my black leather jacket when holding interviews with UFO eye-witnesses because by-the-by, I had found out that I had inadvertently spurred a local MIB (men in black) legend. Sheeew! So let's call my theory the Researcher Fallibility Theory.



Mike



[edit on 13-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Not to get too far off topic but I'm not sure how Lindell can claim: "UFOs and foo fighters justifiably fall within the study of folklore and psychology, not the fields of physics and engineering."

I don't find that snotty but (and not to be dramatic) a "dangerous" wrong. I for one would rather have a physicist studying a ufo that buzzed a military area, rather than a psychologist. Maybe there is something more behind his statement, but that is extremely disconcerting to hear someone believe their interest is the only way to explain a phenomenon. Yikes! The only reason I am so bothered by it, is that I know college profs that live in "their" world to explain everything--hopefully there is a clarification.

Ufology is a joke. And it is dying--most of the witch doctors can no longer hide behind mumbo jumbo as the internet gives us all a larger magnifying glass to examine extraordinary claims/events almost within that day--not 2 years later when someone writes a book.

BUT we have to remember there is a reason ufology is poorly represented. Academic institutions don't exactly produce ufologists--now do they? I found most skeptics to be ex or current college faculty. They have MONEY!!! They're "job" isn't to sell that aliens are real--it doesn't put food on their table like some ufologists. They have the luxury to discredit, and in a way are expected to, which gives a professor a nice chance to write a book and justify his tenure. A ufologist is usually someone that does this as a 2nd job or spare time--sure there are exceptions--but since there are no degrees required, anyone can be one. I doubt Linda Moulton Howe, David Sereda, or Don Schmitt are on par academically with most skeptics like Shermer, Shostak, or Carl Sagan.

The ufologists are like the Bad News Bears going up against a rich semi-pro baseball team. They are not respected, rarely win, cause their own errors, but sometimes...they do eke out a win.

Ufology is what it is because academia has forced it down that path. I'm not saying ufology is "right", what I'm saying is academia has avoided knowledge training on the phenomenon. John Mack was a great example to me of the nonsensical pressure he was under for studying abductions. It didn't have to be a question of aliens, the experiment is why do people believe it? But it disturbed Harvard, and in return we got Susan Clancy's so-so argument dismissing it--and nothing more. To me, ufology and this whole 2nd rate study of the phenomenon points right to that. Clancy may be right, Mack may be right...but why the fear? Keep going, find out why it is happening.

The fewer ufologists the better--but I think a new attitude needs to taken on how we study this phenomenon and "exclusivity" statements of a folklorist is not a good first step. I haven't been too pleased with the logic of even some skeptics, and I even took Michael Shermer to task on some of his short videos that were falling into the trap of confirmation bias to show how smart he was--his blinders were on too much. Yes, the most likely answer is the answer, but truth and science doesn't always follow "likely" or limited to what human knowledge you possess at this point in time. You have to think outside the box and take in unlikely possibilities to make a jump and gain new knowledge.



[edit on 7/14/09 by Atomic]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
I'm not sure how Lindell can claim: "UFOs and foo fighters justifiably fall within the study of folklore and psychology, not the fields of physics and engineering."

I don't find that snotty but (and not to be dramatic) a "dangerous" wrong. I for one would rather have a physicist studying a ufo that buzzed a military area, rather than a psychologist. Maybe there is something more behind his statement, but that is extremely disconcerting to hear someone believe their interest is the only way to explain a phenomenon. Yikes! The only reason I am so bothered by it, is that I know college profs that live in "their" world to explain everything--hopefully there is a clarification.

Ufology is a joke. And it is dying--most of the witch doctors can no longer hide behind mumbo jumbo as the internet gives us all a larger magnifying glass to examine extraordinary claims/events almost within that day--not 2 years later when someone writes a book.

BUT we have to remember there is a reason ufology is poorly represented. Academic institutions don't exactly produce ufologists--now do they? I found most skeptics to be ex or current college faculty. They have MONEY!!! They're "job" isn't to sell that aliens are real--it doesn't put food on their table like some ufologists. They have the luxury to discredit, and in a way are expected to, which gives a professor a nice chance to write a book and justify his tenure. A ufologist is usually someone that does this as a 2nd job or spare time--sure there are exceptions--but since there are no degrees required, anyone can be one. I doubt Linda Moulton Howe, David Sereda, or Don Schmitt are on par academically with most skeptics like Shermer, Shostak, or Carl Sagan.

The ufologists are like the Bad News Bears going up against a rich semi-pro baseball team. They are not respected, rarely win, cause their own errors, but sometimes...they do eke out a win.

Ufology is what it is because academia has forced it down that path. I'm not saying ufology is "right", what I'm saying is academia has avoided knowledge training on the phenomenon. John Mack was a great example to me of the nonsensical pressure he was under for studying abductions. It didn't have to be a question of aliens, the experiment is why do people believe it? But it disturbed Harvard, and in return we got Susan Clancy's so-so argument dismissing it--and nothing more. To me, ufology and this whole 2nd rate study of the phenomenon points right to that. Clancy may be right, Mack may be right...but why the fear? Keep going, find out why it is happening.

The fewer ufologists the better--but I think a new attitude needs to taken on how we study this phenomenon and "exclusivity" statements of a folklorist is not a good first step. I haven't been too pleased with the logic of even some skeptics, and I even took Michael Shermer to task on some of his short videos that were falling into the trap of confirmation bias to show how smart he was--his blinders were on too much. Yes, the most likely answer is the answer, but truth and science doesn't always follow "likely" or limited to what human knowledge you possess at this point in time. You have to think outside the box and take in unlikely possibilities to make a jump and gain new knowledge.


This will be a hasty reply to some critical points you bring up.

Lindell's diplomacy may not be the best, but I think the context is important. He did an investigation of Foo Fighters that is comprehensive, And he had been told there was virtually no documentation on the phenomena by UFOlogists. His emphasis is on how mythologies germinate. He is trying to say how UFOlogists are like Fundamentalists who are commenting on Middle East history and anthropology using the Bible as their primary reference source.

Your pointed comments on the dying world of paperback UFO literature and how the Internet will kill the monopolies these hack writers once had, are well taken.

I disagree with you feeling that the hobbyists are so disadvantage compared to academics. It's not so much a matter of budget but the need to come up with something sensational to get a contract and selling hooks that has crippled the field. Books that emblazon on the cover "UFOS ARE HERE" sell. Ones that say "UFOS ARE A MASS DELUSION" don't sell or attract publishers.

There is something to UFOs, but like the JFK investigations and now 9/11, the evidence has been trampled by too many muddy boots. Too many cases have been mangled. The witnesses actually read articles on their experiences and celebrity status and attention push them towards embroidering their own testimony.

Much more is a product of the mind than investigators want to believe. With motivation the ability to rewrite one's own memory log is ever present.
There is a thread running on how abduction cases are largely a product of repressed sexual abuse as children. Maybe too Freudian for most, but I can see it immediately. Can you say anal probe?

More soon.


Mike



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


woah man you managed to erase all ufology.ufology is based on cases like roswell betty and barney hill and the others you mentioned.if you take these cases out there is no ufology.unless you want to term ufology the various crop circles and their secret meaning




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 




Radiation on site.......PLEASE. If you believe that then you didn't understand that the unit they were using didn't have the resolution to display what is claimed.


Indeed. The AN-PDR27 was designed to measure large amounts of radiation, therefore the relatively 'small' amounts of radiation in the forest were difficult to measure. Still, we know that the levels of radiation (regardless of the scale) peaked while facing the suspected 'landing site':



Lt. Colonel Halt: We are getting readings on the tree. You're taking samples from on the side facing the suspected landing site?
Lt. Englund: Four clicks max.
Lt. Colonel Halt: Up to four. Interesting. That's right were you're taking the sample now.
Lt. Englund: Four
Lt. Colonel Halt: That's the strongest point on the tree?
Sgt. Nevilles: Yes sir, and if you come to the back, there's no clicks whatsoever.
Lt. Colonel Halt: No clicks at all in the back
Sgt. Nevilles: Maybe one or two
Lt. Colonel Halt: It's all on the side facing the [landing site]...interesting.




And to make believe that THESE KIDS were HIGHLY trained SUPER SOLDIERS who are far and above fault


No one has claimed the witnesses in this case to be 'above fault'. Some of the witnesses were young but many were higher-ranking and much older - certainly not 'kids' . We're all human, we can make mistakes. Call the witnesses 'ignorant' if you like, make some phone calls - I'm guessing that you have never even been to Rendlesham forest.



You have not looked at the facts of this case by yourself, without the internet filter of conspiracy guiding your way, so it does not surprise me that you take this position


That's a false argument. The same statement could be applied to your "facts". At the end of the day, your theory(let's call it the "lighthouse theory") is still a theory... and if I had a theory, mine would be just that too.


Funny, how the recording matches EXACTLY the cycle rate of the lighthouse in the distance. Guess the UFO was just matching that to blend in huh?


Here's an extract from Halt's tape, recorded live:


Sgt. Nevilles (spots UFO): Right on this position here. Straight ahead in between the trees... we're getting it again.
Lt. Englund: Watch... Right there... (5 second pause)
Sgt. Nevilles: I'll throw the hell off my flashlight there. There it is!


That's all we have: "We're getting it again" and "There it is!". Very little data to work with as you see. If we had a longer extract with the men spotting the light at five-second intervals, I would have to agree with you. But as it stands, the five-second interval proves nothing.


Noticeably missing from cases like this, presented by those that do so, are the majority of the things that seem to discredit or leave doubt in the observer's or readers mind. Wonder why that is?


Again, the same could be applied to your argument. You neglected to mention that soon after the "light house" is seen flashing at five-second intervals, "it" appears to hover, approaches the twin RAF bases at high speed and sends a pencil-thin beam of light down to the ground.


The lighthouse lights were seen on many occasions, and on foggy nights it was rumored to be really cool looking, resulting on more than one occasion of radio banter about strange lights in the distance.


The weather conditions were clear throughout duration of the Rendlesham case.

As for rumours, see the light house for yourself. It's a dot of light on the horizon.

In my opinion, there is no "simple answer". The Rendlesham forest case is extremely complex.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by JH80]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Well I'm going camping there again this weekend so I'll see what photo's and (if I can get my hands on a cam) video I can take to shut up the 'lighthouse' theorists. I challenge anyone to come here and prove its a viable option. Unless you've seen it for yourself, you've got nothing to back up your belief, bar accepting the words of cynics.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join