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.

 

Britains 'Roswell' Rendlesham/RAF Bentwaters Finally 'Explained' ! NOT !

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
New evidence comes to light 29 years after Britains most famous UFO case ?


Britain's most celebrated UFO sighting was a 'lorry full of fertiliser'
A lorry driver has claimed that he was at the root of Britain's most famous UFO sighting and not aliens.

In December 1980, witnesses claimed to have seen coloured and glowing lights coming from close to an RAF base Rendlesham Forest, near Woodbridge, Suffolk.

Servicemen from the airbase who investigated claimed to have seen lights moving through the trees, as well as a bright light from an unidentified object. Some even claimed to have seen a conical metallic object floating above the trees. Police logged the incident as a UFO sighting.

Full report here :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Why come forward with this ridiculous statement ?

edit to explain, this report came out in September last year but i am just curious as to why this guy would step forward and try and convince us that all those military personel were incompetent basically ? Highly trained servicemen could not and would not get something like this wrong ? Unless like Lord Hill-Norton said "they were all hallucinating" ? Also the incident's (plural) lasted over two nights ? This could only account for one ?

[edit on 083131p://01America/Chicago06 by ProRipp]

[edit on 083131p://01America/Chicago06 by ProRipp]

[edit on 083131p://01America/Chicago06 by ProRipp]

[edit on 083131p://01America/Chicago06 by ProRipp]




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Quite.

I would think a lorry load of, presumably nitrate chemical based rather than poo based, fertiliser would leave some physical evidence (assuming it got hot enough to burn aluminium), I don't think it'd be easy to contain. There could well be sparks etc. leading to burn marks or smoke marks on surrounding trees. I'd have hoped that would have been picked up by contemporary investigations of the location.

There is also the problem of accurate recollection of dates. It's reasonably possible he has the date wrong, unless he kept records of his illegal dumping activity in a diary. Witnesses coming forward this late on should always be examined particularly sceptically because witness testimony is bad enough without the passage of time.

It wouldn't surprise me if the witness has put 1+2 together and got 4. In that the story sounds plausible but unlikely to have occurred that night. Without a diary entry or something supporting the date I don't have much faith in it at all.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Because he admitted the fertiliser was stolen, and was worried about the statute of limitations on such a crime, and possibly his reputation?

It makes a lot more sense than a UFO simply pratting about in the forest for no apparent reason. We know trucks, fertiliser, and criminals all exist, as we have (too) many samples of each. We don't know aliens or flying saucers exist, as we have no evidence of either.

Occam's razor suggests we must accept his story as the truth, simply because it's the most simple, and requires the least leaps of faith.

I know you want the Redlesham forest incident to be a UFO - clearly you do - but that's no reason to eschew critical thought and rationality.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


This is old news and has been discussed several times here on ATS.

The man is known locally as a prankster and general village idiot. Lies, lies, lies.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Sounds just like the kind of local character who would steal a lorry full of "muck".

I still think this is one of the most interesting cases though and I wouldn't say this draws the incident to any kind of solid conclusion.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Because he admitted the fertiliser was stolen, and was worried about the statute of limitations on such a crime, and possibly his reputation?

It makes a lot more sense than a UFO simply pratting about in the forest for no apparent reason. We know trucks, fertiliser, and criminals all exist, as we have (too) many samples of each. We don't know aliens or flying saucers exist, as we have no evidence of either.


This is an astute example of idiotic thinking. By defining evidence to exclude that which would be evidence! Couple this tactic with a priori assumptions ("no ufo would fly around in a forest") and you have the required mix for pseudo-skepticism.

Furthermore, Occam's razor does not suggest reductionism, pigeonholing or selective use of data. Occam's razor is not even a rule of science or an indicator of truth. It's merely a useful rule of thumb.

Because fertilizer, trucks and fire exist, does not mean this explanation is more logical than the extraordinary one. It has to fit the data, I suggest your prosaic tale is sorely lacking in that department. Sheesh.

You talk about critical thought and rationality, yet you seem to lack these very abilities.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I remember reading this story on another news website and laughing my ass off. Seriously this is stupid. Anyone who's actually done a little research on the case would laugh at this sh1t.

So what's it going to be? The lighthouse? Police car flashing lights? Truck burning? lmao

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Fist_Of_The_North_Star]

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Fist_Of_The_North_Star]

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Fist_Of_The_North_Star]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
When it comes to Britain's 'Roswell', Rendlesham/RAF Bentwaters case, and skeptics raise issues that cast doubt on the serviceman's testimony, we must remember that the main incident of historical significance is that a small triangular shaped "craft" was seen to have landed, and said craft was observed by two VERY RELIABLE witnesses. The many other aspects of the case are very interesting such as the "craft" shooting "beams" of colored light down onto areas thought to have contained Nuclear stockpiles, etc, etc. But when you have a landed UFO on the ground and your alternative theory fails to address this all important fact, you lose credibility by omitting the most pertinent and interesting aspect of the case. Alternative light sources such as the lighthouse in the distance and burning piles of fertilizer and any other possible explanations for the phenomenon that do not take into account the landed craft seen by military police, are not worth considering. Skeptics who have made their minds up about this case almost NEVER mention the landed craft with intriguing and "possibly" Alien Glyphs inscribed on the side of the craft. The reason for this omission is clear, there are no simple explanations to make it go away, so when I see stories like this pop up that in no way effect the most interesting aspect of the incident(s), I see no reason to give the alternative theory unearned credibility. The original incident stands on its own when the landed craft is considered, no other aspect has greater importance based on the known facts.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The worst 'explanation' for the Rendlesham events I have heard yet.



Occam's razor suggests we must accept his story as the truth, simply because it's the most simple, and requires the least leaps of faith.

I know you want the Redlesham forest incident to be a UFO - clearly you do - but that's no reason to eschew critical thought and rationality.


There is absolutely no reason to accept Turtill's story, not one shred of evidence, but you are willing to accept his 'explanation' because "it's the most simple" one?


You cannot use Occam's Razor to 'force fit' an explanation. Turtill's story does not match the facts. End of. The witnesses are not even taking this 'theory' seriously - John Burroughs called it "cr*p."

On a more positive note, John Burroughs hopes to organize a reunion in England for all the Rendlesham witnesses, to mark the incident's 30th anniversary. Hopefully this event will provide us with some answers, or at least some more information.

backtobentwaters.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Close the thread, been discussed before and there is not an ounce of truth to this eejit's claim. The Rendlesham incident is one of the best. Period.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by October
 


Listen mate if you don't wanna discuss it go elsewhere ! I'm trying to understand why the guy would claim this after 29 years ! We all know he's an 'eejit' but what 'possessed him to come out with this ? What were his motives ?
Don't go round telling people to close their threads if people want to discuss it they can ! Who are you to stop them ? Bye



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The same reason this guy came out with this cr@p

www.bbc.co.uk...

Disinfo



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join