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.
Originally posted by fleabit
I served in the military for many years. Young soldier doesn't equate to ignorant.
Don't you think that they had perhaps seen that lighthouse probably many times in their time serving there?
Why were these sightings not happening on a regular basis, if it was something as simple as that?
... there is imo, more to it than a lighthouse.
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
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.
Originally posted by LucidDreamer85 We humans are not dumb......just young and easily manipulated...
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Simple answer. It was.
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]
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.
Originally posted by tarifa37
If this is true then it is truly amazing and reopens this very famous ufo case .
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Historical and Physiological Perspective of the Foo Fighters of World War II
jeff.lindell.home.comcast.net...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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!
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?
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.