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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by danny-arclight
reply to post by FireMoon
 


and what if they simply dont want to show their rocket failures to their enemies? This is nothing to do with UFO's this is simply propaganda. You dont show the enemy your own side losing! Your'e mixing alien conspiracy paranioia with cold war paranoia - both exist, but one was becuase there was a war going on and one was because its easier for some people to interpret this as a conspiracy involving an extra-terrestrial race. The conspiracy was real! the conspiracy was a plan to hide failure from the patriotic US/UK govts - the terrible thought one of their own missiles / rockets failed.... Like taking prozac and then having to admit you're impotent... thats what they didnt want you to see... not little green men running round waving their arms telling us not to drop bombs on each other.

KNOW YOUR HISTORY. IT WILL BE FAR KINDER TO YOU.

Besides, where is this proof or artic;e of the launch being infiltrated? Do you have a link?

edit: jsu trealised the thing had an awful flight record: looks like the good old brits sold the thing as a job lot to anyone who would take it: en.wikipedia.org...

[
[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]


yeah right most logical that, allow a load of films of of other failures to be viewed but lose the only one of any real interest outside of the routine..

We are not talking about cold war paranoia at all , we are talking a couple of years ago post the cold war when all these films were made available to the public for viewing..

There are any number of films of failed rocket tests by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact available but they have somehow *lost* this one...




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
Dude, although I fully understand what the phrase implies, that is the first time I've ever heard it being used so get off your high horse with the other poster, please.

THANK you
Frankly I'm surprised you're the only one to say that



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
Nick pope hasnt even read the reports done by ufologists at the time.

He believes this to be one of the most important cases on record, and you think he hasn't read anything and everything? Why don't you ask him



Originally posted by yeti101
Why would someone who is going out to look for ufos take a dictaphone and not a camera?

Oh I dunno, maybe because it was sitting on his desk, and he didn't believe he was going to see anything? Are you trying to suggest that the incident didn't happen at all? Because we know this is exactly what he did.


Originally posted by danny-arclight
Just as the original eyewitnesses to this event couldnt at first correcty recalled the exact date it happened (FACT).

Proves nothing, does it? I can't recall the exact date of pretty much anything. Doesn't mean none of it happened.


Originally posted by danny-arclight
- The imprints on the grounds and marks on the trees were similar insize and style to rutting deer.

That is blatently not true.

Firemoon already covered the rest of that post.

We can forget, right now, that Halt and co. didn't see something odd. Not a lighthouse, and not car lights. These men are not idiots. Unless they made the whole thing up, they saw something unexplainable. I've yet to hear one good reason why Halt would have written a report for the MoD and possibly risk his career over a hoax that he didn't even talk about till years later.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Infact I believe LT Col Halt was made a COL , which correct me if i am wrong is a promotion

[edit on 18-8-2009 by gortex]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by danny-arclight
Originally posted by Rigel Kent

OK, See: www.ianridpath.com... - I just want to take a look at some of your comments you make below.


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?


- Banana Skins also refers to falling ove ron your arse in public and making a fool of yourself.



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.


- Why would the BBC be interested in dis-informing its viewers and readers? The Beeb has some of the most liberal, forward thinking journalists in the world, producing intelligent, informed articles, news and debate.


- While its true also tha this security guard later retracted his 'hoax' confession. This just goes to show that you cannot trust all 'witnesses' or 'participants' in a story. Just as the original eyewitnesses to this event couldnt at first correcty recalled the exact date it happened (FACT).



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.


- they didnt see a disc, they saw only lights and heard sounds. the lights were blue, red and yellow, l(like a police car vehicle lights).


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.


- The imprints on the grounds and marks on the trees were similar insize and style to rutting deer.


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 radiation levels were no higher than typical background activity - with some momentary peaks on the equipment that were not repeated and were similar to using and moving with the equipment.


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 farmer did not keep animals, nor was he a witness.


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


- Where is your basis for this statement?


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


- sorry to hear about the lap top, not wishing to poke fun, Is this another case of Psi-Ops?


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


Yeah - there are plenty of people who have - perhaps it would be better however if the argument was better balanced, rather than constantly reduced to this 'news' 'government' 'bbc' conspiracy.... This conspiracy stuff just makes the debate dull. Might as well accept that if there is a cover-up, we can only go on the basis of what we can see, read and hear in the media, press and internet. The very places of conspiracy, apparently.

Peace to you too.

I dont know who you are nore do I give a F$$K, spend some time researching your post then you wont look such a pr££$k
bigger minds than yours have verified this s&&&t

PEACE,
RK

BBC = BRITISH BUL# CORPORATION



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
you may find this interesting....


(www.beyond-knowledge.co.uk...
The BBC, Rendlesham Forest and the curious case of what we are allowed to know about the MOD's files on UFOs

Those who were early risers this morning may have caught a curious report on the Today Programme before 7am, from RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, which was the scene of the Rendlesham Forest incident in 1980. The reporter on location was mysteriously cut off in the middle of her report, just when she reached the point of telling listeners that Lord Hill Norton, the Chief of Britain's Defence Staff in 1980, had written to the then Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine, urging him to take the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident very seriously. If only, he argued, because of the sheer credibility of the principal witnesses, who were all US Air Force personnel. The journalists in the studio cracked a few jokes about interference from UFOs and promised to return to the reporter, once the line was back up again.

The report was never resumed. Instead, an hour or so later, we were treated to the views of the "expert" on UFOs, David Clarke, who predictably went out of his way to dismiss the incident as nothing more than the mistaken sighting of a lighthouse, a few miles from the Bentwaters Base. In fact, according to "expert" Dr Clarke, who was the only person the BBC actually interviewed on this matter, all UFO sightings are nothing more than mistakes in perception. This includes the mis-reading of radar screens by trained pilots and air traffic controllers, who apparently often mistake clouds, waves and flocks of birds for UFOs. If only they had Dr Clarke's "expertise" in these matters!

Of course, if you want to hear someone who was actually at Rendlesham Forest during those days in December 1980, then you should listen to Episode 23 of The Unexplained of The Unexplained on Howard Hughes' excellent internet radio station. Howard interviews Larry Warren, who was one of the USAF security personnel, who saw and experienced something very strange on the third day of the incident. Larry doesn't have any of Dr Clarke's "expertise", not having the benefit of the higher level perspective afforded by the view from an ivory tower. Larry will also be hosting this year's Beyond Knowledge Conference in Liverpool on September 12th and 13th '09. Howard's other interviewee for this episode, Richard C Hoagland will also be appearing at Beyond Knowledge and he will have something interesting to say about the secret Space Program in the US.



So, if youre a sceptic, here's your chance, why not go and ask face to face.


and came across this :

Dear Colonel Halt,

How does it feel to be known as the UFO Colonel? To be told all you saw was a lighthouse, stars or planets in the night sky. How does is feel to have no one in your circle of command step forward and support you in what happened? How does that feel?......

mpre here: backtobentwaters.blogspot.com...

The rendlesham/bentwaters incident still has something tell imo.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The report was never resumed. Instead, an hour or so later, we were treated to the views of the "expert" on UFOs, David Clarke, who predictably went out of his way to dismiss the incident as nothing more than the mistaken sighting of a lighthouse, a few miles from the Bentwaters Base. In fact, according to "expert" Dr Clarke, who was the only person the BBC actually interviewed on this matter, all UFO sightings are nothing more than mistakes in perception. This includes the mis-reading of radar screens by trained pilots and air traffic controllers, who apparently often mistake clouds, waves and flocks of birds for UFOs. If only they had Dr Clarke's "expertise" in these matters

So, Clarke has now changed his own analysis?. For as many years as i can remember, Clarke has claimed it was a mis-identified meteor. I have seen Clarke talk a couple of times about the phenomenon and even given the *vox pop* nature of many such interviews. His understanding and analysis of the whole UFO scene is shockingly naive and shallow.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I believe the documents the OP was talking about, to be in reference to this:

www.youtube.com...

It’s the forth instalment of UFO sightings released by the MoD under the “Freedom of Information” act. The new batch of sightings includes the Rendlesham incident.

Although as far as I’m aware the “newly released” documents don’t highlight anything that wasn’t already public knowledge. Isn’t that why they release them?

Shawn



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

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


Maybe you lived there a long time, but you didn't listen so well. You missed out.
Like the banana skin, that's a little embarassing.

This may help: The Banana Skin Joke

WG3

[edit on 23-8-2009 by waveguide3]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join