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.

 

BBC 24 Hour news running headline about

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 
ahh, the rendlesham incident...aliens, they gotta go...
too




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be great if the court system worked the same way as the skeptics. I could go around murdering and robbing people all day long and all I would have to do is create a bull# alibi or something that sounds plausible... and immediately it would cast doubt on the entire thing and I would be not guilty.

When the skeptics realise that the best way to keep a secret exactly that... a secret.... is to mix a whole heap of crap up with a whole heap of truth... so that nobody can sort out whats lies and whats not....... when the skeptics realise this is the method the government uses.... then we might finally get somewhere to investigating this stuff. Until then everything is "debunked" in their mind.

It's funny how a couple of blokes coming forward to say they pranked with .lights is considered "proof" of something yet 3 blokes see a bloke abducted by a UFO in the woods and it's not proof at all. Hypocrits.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


no this is what the myth builders & gatekeepers of ufology do in order to muddy the waters to keep the believers on the hook. Just like roswell the story keeps changing when they get caught out.

its not just 1 aspect that casts doubt on rendlesham. Its practically everything from the drastically changing witness testimony, to first hand witnesses who were asked to take part in the hoax but rejected the chance. The audio is pretty damning that they were looking at the lighthouse etc etc. But like i said belivers arnt interested in the truth so go on believing what you like if it makes u happy.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


No, I asked for a link to substantial evidence that it was a psi op, I have done more reading on Rendlesham than most and spoken personally to few involved in the fall out. This *pis op*, so far, has about as much credibility as George Adamski's films..

it is just typical of certain people's tactics to jump on the first thing that offers an alternated explanation without any back up whatsoever whilst at the same time haranguing anyone who cannot provide the name tags from the crew of a claimed UFO sighting..



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


I thought UFO Hunters pretty much debunked the light house theory, there was a big piece of metal behind it so the intesity of the light would have been diminished.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by avat178]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Total Package
 


no this is what the myth builders & gatekeepers of ufology do in order to muddy the waters to keep the believers on the hook. Just like roswell the story keeps changing when they get caught out.

its not just 1 aspect that casts doubt on rendlesham. Its practically everything from the drastically changing witness testimony, to first hand witnesses who were asked to take part in the hoax but rejected the chance. The audio is pretty damning that they were looking at the lighthouse etc etc. But like i said belivers arnt interested in the truth so go on believing what you like if it makes u happy.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]


See what I mean.... you guys just happily use the bits you want to debunk something.... that lighthouse theory being the most piss weak of all. Note though it is just a THEORY. Since when did a theory all of a sudden become evidence?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
You may be interested in this to , just found link to new files released from Brazil , ok if you speak Spanish
www.ufo.com.br... Credit to The Brazilian UFO Magazine website .
ENJOY


In Brazil they speak portuguese, not spanish.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi

Originally posted by gortex
You may be interested in this to , just found link to new files released from Brazil , ok if you speak Spanish
www.ufo.com.br... Credit to The Brazilian UFO Magazine website .
ENJOY


In Brazil they speak portuguese, not spanish.



Portugese... Spanish.. same thing. These people need to get with the times and learn English.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


youve clearly not researched rendlesham as much as me. Why dont you go find out about it first then make up your mind - thats what i did. Its clear your not familiar with the case.

im sorry if the changing witness testimony doesnt support the story you want to believe. Its not my fault they change their story.Is that why you leave it out when you think about this case? you just ignore parts that are inconvenient for you.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by waveguide3
No. The banana skin reference is part of the English language culture

Well given that I lived there for over 30 years and never heard of it, I'd say "no it isn't".

However, not important.


You've never seen a cartoon with someone or something slipping on a banana peel? Really? Hard to believe....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by Tifozi

Originally posted by gortex
You may be interested in this to , just found link to new files released from Brazil , ok if you speak Spanish
www.ufo.com.br... Credit to The Brazilian UFO Magazine website .
ENJOY


In Brazil they speak portuguese, not spanish.



Portugese... Spanish.. same thing. These people need to get with the times and learn English.


I seriously hope that was a joke.

2nd line.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by avat178
 


no they are wrong there is video on the net clearly showing the lighthouses flashing light from the approximate location the witnesses were.

These people who keep perpetrating these myths do it for their own ends. They dont do it to find the truth. UFO hunters has a vested interest in making their cases interesting otherwise nobody would watch. The show is catered to the eager believer that is the audience they are targeting. Rememeber what i said about keeping belivers on the hook? you wont do that by declaring everything a fraud. Thats not good for business/ viewing figures.

this video vimeo.com... clearly shows how badly ufo hunters do an investigation.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Hmm, it's quite hard to believe military personal would mistaken a moving bright red object projecting beams on the ground for a lighthouse and considering the metal wall the lighthouse would not of been as bright or red.

Edit:
The light house in the video doesn't quite look like what was described by the witnesses, I guess they could have confused the lighthouse in the video for an anti-collision light on a cellular/radio tower but not as a UFO.





[edit on 17-8-2009 by avat178]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by avat178
 


thats if you belive they are really telling what they saw. Or is it embelished/exagerated/hoaxed? Believe whatever makes you happy.

altho i find it very interesting you make no comment on ufo hunters and the bunk information they provided you. Last post i'm out.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

You've never seen a cartoon with someone or something slipping on a banana peel? Really? Hard to believe....

Well obviously. Just never heard anybody SAY it, anywhere in the country. It's not the 'common term' it was made out to be.


Originally posted by big_BHOY
It's used a lot by football commentators

Well that would be why I haven't heard it, then. Never could stand football.

Anyway...

Rendlesham was not a bloody lighthouse, or car lights, and the people who WERE actually there (and yes, we CAN forget the ones that weren't but claim to be), as far as I'm aware, have not changed their stories at all. That is, every time I've actually SEEN these people talking, rather than trust something somebody wrote and claimed they said - they tell the same story.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Clickfoot
 


i'll give you a clue. Check the statements they gave to the police and check the story they tell later. yeti over & out.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Clickfoot.
We have a lot of strange sayings in England.
If someone referred to an item as a "banana skin" I would immediately think that they were warning me that it was potentially dangerous or as stated cause for a "slip-up" and therefore potentially harmful. Other similar terms in common use might be "hot potato" or "poisoned chalice" You heard of them?

In the case of Rendlesham Forrest,
I remember searching the internet and reading released government documents at the beginning of this year and nowhere did I find reference that some US Service men had come forward and admitted that they were shining torches and it was all a hoax. Smacks of govt dis-info through the BBC to me.

I remember reading and listening to the US military radio traffic transcript from the base security personnel and it was very detailed stuff.
If memory serves me correctly, the incident happened over 2 consecutive nights and several staff from the USAF base got very close to the disc which had landed in the forrest on the second night.

The next morning they even measured and charted the imprints in the forrest floor from the crafts 3 feet/landing gear and also documented freshly damaged tree bark at the site.

I thik they also got increased background radiation levels at the landing site and they had all sorts of problems with radios and flashlights not working correctly around the site.

The incident was also witnessed by member(s) of the local Police and the farmer reported that all of the animals were going crazy in the middle of the night.

The craft was also plotted by ground radar staff and at phenomenal speeds after taking off.

Unfortunately I can not post documents as they were all on my other laptop which got stolen a few weeks back so I am recalling this from memory, but I think it is near enough to what I read online from these doc's

If you spend a few hours searching the www you guys should be able to verify everything that I have said here.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by avat178
 


no they are wrong there is video on the net clearly showing the lighthouses flashing light from the approximate location the witnesses were.

These people who keep perpetrating these myths do it for their own ends. They dont do it to find the truth. UFO hunters has a vested interest in making their cases interesting otherwise nobody would watch. The show is catered to the eager believer that is the audience they are targeting. Rememeber what i said about keeping belivers on the hook? you wont do that by declaring everything a fraud. Thats not good for business/ viewing figures.

this video vimeo.com... clearly shows how badly ufo hunters do an investigation.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]


Utter garbage and if you had done 10% of the research you claim to have, you'd know that is exactly what it is.... The guy who came up with that theory actually rescinded it on film when Halt showed him the actual sight of the happening.Maybe you should actually try keeping up with the investigation, rather than, selectively quoting from anything that backs what you want to believe up.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by FireMoon]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


yeah becuase its really hard to change your location if your caught out, isn't it?

you eager believers are such suckers. Your going to struggle to explain how the police managed to see the lighthouse from the location they were brought to on the night of the "sighting"


[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Ahh that BBC Breakfast presenter Bill Turnbull and his side kick Kate Silverton just took the cash and acted as told this morning, when it came to word UFO Bill was sarcy and they both developed into fake laughter and he said it was all about rods in a derisionary way. They say the BBC is non political but they always get their staff to act in a certain way. In the 80s it was all anti SA, the 90's were all anti Yugoslavia, then moved to anti IDF/Israel, then it was all anti Saddam, then moved on to anti Iran. They do get obsessed with politics all the same and tow the government line, they always follow the laugh and deride rule when it comes to the UFO.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join