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.

 

Rendlesham Forest was hoax

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sashwah
 


well if your in liverpool then it will be lark lane, ill join you for a drink


2nd what day you plan on meeting? sat? ill be in the albert thats were he drinks :p




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I'll be in Liverpool on Saturday, Larry is hosting the Beyond Knowledge conference over the weekend so I'll be spending time with him afterwards. I've arranged to meet with Nick too. I'm up for a meet up after the talks finish, unless you get a ticket and go?

www.ufomagazine.co.uk... (about the conference)



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
OP, you do know the Daily Mail, the website from which you got this story, is a tabloid, right?

Sorry to say, but I think you were had.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeJaguar67
 


I agree mate.

I wrote as much on their site too.

Patronizing in the extreme...don't believe trained high ranking military personnel, who incidentally were trusted enough to have control of a nuclear arsenal..Who say the actually walked all the way around the landed, pyramidal shaped craft, and even touched it - describing it as smooth metalic, with a blueish colour etc etc. Then took impressions from three identical pressure marks in the ground left when the craft silently lifted off the ground and ascended up and over the tree canopy..

NO..DON'T believe all of those, but DO believe some anonymous old geezer, who freely admits as part of his story, that he was up to no good in the woods.

Hmmm...i wonder who has just the slightest bit more credibility...



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
As I have mentioned before, I think the whole incident is slightly bogus. Something happened, either witness confusion of mundane events, or purposeful story telling for unknown reason, but I don't think ANYTHING happened as the people described it.

I had spent some time putting together my thoughts after looking into this for a few years, then low and behold I found some dude doing a podcast that summed up my thoughts perfectly, and way more eloquently than I could have.

right click here, save as

Transcript of above podcast here

Now, obviously you could go into it much deeper than this guy did, but after it fails the sniff test, why bother?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOexisist
 


Ya right!! I'm sure this is the explanation, especially if the UK military did so much investigation into it. HA!! I too have my own doubts about the event but if you are so easily convinced by such 'sources' you should just pack your bags and join a different forum.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by tmayhew01]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


This guy Dunning's Roswell "explanation" was flat out wrong on essential facts and this seems to be a pattern in his lazy work.

Here's something pretty detailed: This guy Hastings at least got off his couch to do some research and direct interviews and corresponding.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by fls13
 


Just the fact that this is stated:


2.......Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the three depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.


Tells me everything I need to know about hastings sensationalistic b.s right there. He sells books. You think he is going to sell a lot of books if he concluded that nothing nearly as exiting as was claimed happened? He is writing these books for people that are into this subject, and his audience doesn't want to sit around and read crap that doesn't get them excited.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I HIGHLY doubt that there is anything alien really involved. Just some kids in the woods......

Now, the PA case really gets my juices flowing (I've looked into that one personally). We should correspond about that sometime.....

[edit on 6-9-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I was in discussion elsewhere about this with some people in England. This was counter intelligent hole plugging I think. Its a response to the new information coming out by witnesses about film and other evidence they know exists. Also, a reunion and media event is coming up for the original witnesses.

So the while the coals are heating up, it's the best time to douse any possibility of flames. But for us, the white smoke indicates something real.

Someone posted this recently and I'm keeping it handy to remind us of these events that are not so innocent.

Counter intelligence methods

I think we will be completely surprised when we find how many contemporary events have been defused by such methods. Learn the earmarks and be wary.

I believe this is a good possibility of such a planned and executed attempt to take the wind out of the sails of the Rendlesham Forest event.

ZG

[edit on 9/6/2009 by ZeroGhost]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


I never looked at Hastings writing all that close until today. That 36,000 MPH radar target got my attention. I thought the UFO Hunters did a nice job with the Rendlesham case.



I'm not sure which PA case you mean? Kecksburg?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I HIGHLY doubt that there is anything alien really involved. Just some kids in the woods......



Originally posted by fls13
I never looked at Hastings writing all that close until today. That 36,000 MPH radar target got my attention.


I just read the Dunning report and the Hastings report. You're right fls that Dunning did more work to interview witnesses.

Ignorethefacts said the truth is somewhere in the middle, I think he's right.

If the radar target was at a high enough altitude, then the fast radar target could be consistent with Dunning's account of meteor showers. But once an object enters the atmosphere, atmospheric friction would try to slow it down so even a meteor entering the Earth's atmosphere at 25,000 mpg would slow down dramatically below that speed in the atmosphere, unless it's HUGE.

Both reports ignore facts stated in the other account. The Hastings report says Halt knew it wasn't the lighthouse because Halt said he had the lighthouse in sight when he saw the other object, but ask Dunning points out, apparently Halt was unaware of the 2nd lighthouse, and Hastings doesn't even mention that. Some of the most solid evidence we have in the case is Halt's recording, and that does seem to reinforce that he was seeing the other lighthouse. Even in Hasting's story, none of the other witnesses confirmed the beams of light shooting down from the UFO that Halt described. In fact, different witnesses seem to have reported different things, one guy saw sparks shooting up which sounds nothing like beams shooting down. There's obviously confusion on what nights the events even took place in Hasting's story (Not Hasting's personal confusion, he's just pointing out it's hard to figure out exactly what supposedly happened on what night) and Dunning also pointed out that confusion.

Dunning does tend to over-simplify things and completely omit discussing facts which seem important to some. But I find that most often those "facts" are witness testimony, which can be notoriously unreliable, even with a guy who I think is probably telling the truth about what he saw, like Halt.

And Hastings is selling books so he would like it to sound as mysterious as possible, hence the sloppy Geiger counter reporting, omission of the 2nd lighthouse, the 5 antenna lights that Halt saw, etc.

It would be nice if there was an account that tried to explain all the facts more accurately than these 2 guys do, but I haven't found one yet, so many of them seem to have some bias.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
so they actually walked up to a burning lorry and mistook it for a UFO? ok................phew thank god now we know, i will sleep better at night, thanx


Peace



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I am a UK researcher and have spent thousands of hours studying every single possible explanation for this event and in no way was it mundane.... why the hell would both the British and American's go to such lengths to cover up nothing? The fact is this event is quite likely to be a cold war scenario... a dropped nuclear weapon or something human and not ET... either way something significant happened. I have spent a lot of time in the forest and have spoken to and have become friends with a lot of the people involved and guess what... half of them do not think it was ET but half of them do. You can sit on your arses doing passive research and believing unreliable sources if you want but as you do that and spew out such utter tripe you spread the disinformation.

fact of the matter is... all of the cold war/russian pilots ejecting into the forest etc explanations do not explain every single occurrance that happened in that forest over the weekend. A burning truck wouldn't go on for three nights, an ejector pod wouldn't... the search for a dropped nuke might but then it doesn't explain a pyramid craft seen, touched and drawn... even if it was a WASP 2 prototype as has been suggested it would have emited noise and would have had noise seeing as every vehicle we use has an exhaust system. 9 hours after the RFI there was an incident in Piney woods which involved a pyramid shaped craft which burnt Vicki Lundrum and gave her radiation poisoning... it was suggested it was the craft seen at Rendlesham but it cant have been for all of the above reasons.. as has already been mentioned the radiation readings were only just above normal and can't really be admissable due to normal fluctuations of radionuclides in the soil. Also what of the lights seen flying through truck windows and the pencil thin beams of light coming from a silent object above?
Unless of course a Col (who came to be base commander) couldn't recognize a helicopter even though he was on an air base... and my FOI requests to the MoD and thre DoD turned up no choppers in the sky over those nights.
Anyone on here who say's nothing happened there obviously hasn't looked into it at all and is being an armchair pontificator. This ridiculous article is so obviously an attempt to make anyone who might come forward as a new witness at the Rendlesham reuinion think twice... I am helping organize the event and believe me when I say I know this case inside out I really do because I got off my arse and looked into it. I have uncovered so many things that have not been referred to before I have decided to write a book about it.. from all angles.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by sashwah]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What radar reports? Do tell...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I'm not even going to access the link to the article that you posted. Why bother?

I am a rational, level headed person who set off to study the UFO phenomenon without any bias or preconceived notions. After reading, thinking and researching the topic through the years, I have decided (for myself) that there are UFOs and that is has been covered up by the government.

Since I have concluded this, I don't think it's neccesary to go back to UFO's 101 class. I've graduated. I've moved on from "Are there such a thing as UFO's?" to "What does it all mean?" I don't need convincing anymore, but instead choose to find the true depth of the issue.

Reading disinformation, searching out articles that discredit my beliefs, and not following my own intuition is only taking me back to square one.

Here's my advice: Study the issue in depth. Make a logical conclusion with a dose of your own intuition thrown in the pot. And then move on to the more compelling issues that surround the UFO phenomenon, rather than just "do they exist or not?"

Pick your side.

But please: It isn't neccessary to come here and debate this with yourself, is it?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I wish you would go to the forest and come back and explain to me how you can even see the lighthouse from the landing sites!!! even Ian Ridp[ath who suggested it was one elemnent has said that he's been taken out of context... read this from the horses mouth...

IanR Post subject: Re: Charles Halt, Press release.Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:50 pm


Established Member

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm
Posts: 175 puddlepirate wrote:
Ian R's lighthouse theory that proposed Orfordness lighhouse as the primary cause for Penniston's, Burrough's and Cabansag's excursion into the forest has been proven to be incorrect because it is not possible to see the lighthouse from east gate.

I have never suggested the lighthouse was the prime cause of P, B and C's excursion into the forest, nor have I ever suggested that it is visible from East Gate, and I don't understand why you would think otherwise if you have read what I have written. I'm sure we went over this at least once before last year, but clearly to no avail as it's evident that you are still going round in a circle of incomprehension.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
IanR Post subject: Re: Charles Halt, Press release.Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:27 am


Established Member

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm
Posts: 175 Actually, of course, the discussion about helicopters is irrelevant because we already know that nothing was flying in that area at the time of Halt’s night out. Halt called Easter Radar at RAF Watton repeatedly while the event was going on but they saw nothing. As I think you know, Adrian, a Radio 4 reporter called Gerry Northam interviewed the duty officer that night, squadron leader Derek Coumbe, back in 2003. The discussion went like this:

>>
DC: Absolutely nothing at all in the area at all at that time.

GN: If it had been an object from outer space would you have seen it?

DC: Any return of an object moving in space in that area would certainly have shown up on this radar. The radar had extremely good coverage for the Bentwaters and Woodbridge area. Aircraft taking off from either of those bases would show up within half a mile of the end of the runway.

GN: Was Watton an important radar centre?

DC: Watton was extremely important from the United States Air Force point of view in that it controlled nearly every airfield run by the USAF in East Anglia including half a dozen RAF airfields as well. 90 percent of all the traffic on the military base at Watton was USAF military aircraft.

GN: What was the smallest object that you would be able to paint?

DC: Well usually it was so sensitive that it could pick up large flocks of birds for example, and even small weather balloons showed up quite frequently.

GN: So something coming from outer space could not have been missed?

DC: I can't see how it could have been missed at all. It would have certainly shown up.
>
GN: The story is that American intelligence came to investigate this evidence and took it away afterwards. Is that right?

DC: It would well be that the USAF or their investigators could have come to the base. But this was a normal occurrence after any type of incident with American aircraft. They would come to the base in conjunction with the American liaison officer who was permanently based at RAF Watton to scrutinise tapes or even view the films from the radar.

GN: So if they did that was nothing unusual?

DC: It was nothing unusual at all.

GN: So the idea that the spooks were coming to seize evidence that was so dramatic that it couldn't be made public, what do you make of that claim?

DC: Absolute nonsense. Nothing was ever taken away, nothing was ever forwarded to anybody in any shape or form. If they came to investigate they came purely to view what we had as our own holdings and they would have taken down any evidence which they wished to see, but they certainly wouldn't have taken anything away with them.
>
GN: What was the tone of the phone calls that came through [from Bentwaters]?

DC: They were very jumpy and quite panicky. In fact the first call I remember initially was just to scrutinise the radar and was there any unusual return in the area. However subsequently it went on a bit and they went on to be a bit panicky as if to imply that there should be something, that we should be seeing something, and really not wanting to take no for an answer. But in the end it sort of calmed down, but there was a bit of jumpiness about the whole situation on the telephone.

GN: When you had the suggestion that you should have a radar trace of something from outer space what went through your mind?

DC: Well nothing really. I couldn't imagine that if there had been anything we wouldn't have seen it and certainly we scrutinised the radar time and time again completely, and kept a watch on it through the whole period when these phone calls were going on and nothing was seen. Nothing at all.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If the radar target was at a high enough altitude, then the fast radar target could be consistent with Dunning's account of meteor showers. But once an object enters the atmosphere, atmospheric friction would try to slow it down so even a meteor entering the Earth's atmosphere at 25,000 mpg would slow down dramatically below that speed in the atmosphere, unless it's HUGE.

Both reports ignore facts stated in the other account. The Hastings report says Halt knew it wasn't the lighthouse because Halt said he had the lighthouse in sight when he saw the other object, but ask Dunning points out, apparently Halt was unaware of the 2nd lighthouse, and Hastings doesn't even mention that.





Do you know the name of the 2nd lighthouse? Even so, I think the UFO Hunters pretty thoroughly squashed the lighthouse explanation. Lighthouses often have cowls on the land side of the light so as not to blast the local populace at all hours. This is the case at Orford Ness. It also seems odd to me that if lighthouses are responsible for the sighting, that people aren't flocking to the area to see the nightly UFO light show and, naturally, videotaping it.

Could the radar target have been meteors or the Soviet booster rocket that was mentioned by Dunning? Either would hit some great speeds. That 36K number was me doing the math based on the following quote:

"What I remember is seeing was a very fast object on the radar we had in the tower. The scope was variable-it had a zoom as far as its [displayed] range, between five and 60-miles radius, but I think it was at set at a 60-miles when the object appeared. It came in from the east, went straight west across the scope and disappeared off the left side. It took maybe four sweeps-each sweep was two or three seconds-to cross it entirely. So it covered 120-miles in [approximately eight to twelve] seconds. In the 15 years I was an air traffic controller, I'd never seen anything travel across the scope that fast. A few seconds later, it came back on the scope, retracing its course, west to east, at the same speed. Then-I think it was maybe half or three-quarters of the way across-it did an immediate right-angle turn and headed south, off the bottom of the screen. I mean, it turned just like that, instantly. We couldn't believe it! I told Ike, 'Okay, that was not one of ours!'"

[edit on 7-9-2009 by fls13]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sashwah
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What radar reports? Do tell...


From Hastings book excerpt here: www.ufodigest.com...

Scroll down to The Radar Tracking at Bentwaters, or you could read the whole article (I did). I did find it plausible that these guys would be afraid to enter strange sightings into their log, but also disturbing. People ought to be able to report what really happens without adverse consequences but as we know that's not always the case.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
Pick your side.

But please: It isn't neccessary to come here and debate this with yourself, is it?


You know that comment "pick your side" really makes me wonder.

The objective for some of us is the truth, there is no "side" to that. Some skeptics want to debunk everything and some believers want to believe everything.

And the whole purpose of these UFO forums (I think) is to present and discuss the evidence from various points of view and find the truth.

Lastly you are debating whether UFOs exist. I think there's no question they exist, the biggest questions are, can they be identified (turned from UFOs or unidentified flying objects, into identified flying objects) and if not, what are they?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join