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

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



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.



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

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



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:


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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]

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.



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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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:



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




Mike



[edit on 13-7-2009 by mmiichael]

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]

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

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

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

---

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':





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.



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.



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



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.



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 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]

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.