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.

 

The BBC's Evan Davis Goes to Rendlesham Forest , and Finds...

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
If you look at the timeline of the disclosure (public) by Halt and the rest of the people that were boots on, then you look at the disclosure time (public) of the private who took the story from an encounter with a light, ship, and unknown to abduction et. al. you will notice a discrepancy that I think will lead to expectation of money from the private who tried to tie on to the "original" story. This private has sullied the story and allow for more disinfo to be brought forth.
BTW: I have heard excerpts from the tape on various shows and documentaries. I was under the impression he made copies of the tapes....were they recreations from the transcript?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by djvexd]




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


The excerpts you heard are probably from the actual tape of the event .
Here is the main body of the tape for anyone interested .



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Perhaps if Ewan had performed investigative journalism and sought out the witnesses he would have improved his credibility.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I'm glad someone has picked up on this. I quite like Davis as a presenter but his investigative journalist skills seem pretty rusty! I read this yesterday and also posted a comment pointing out they actually saw a triangular craft on the ground and touched it. How can that be attributed to stars and a lighthouse. It's a very shoddy piece that doesn't really belong on the bbc.

Also, I note no-one's comments have been added yet...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Gortex.....

Did you see the "Rendlesham" section of "I Know What I Saw"?

I think Fox did an excellent job with that doco, notably the very interesting "Rendlesham" section.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Did you see them
They also neglect to add that Forestry comission flattened the area soon after the event and cleared a lot of the forest away !


No, it was the Oct '87 storm that flattened the area. The trees were still all there when I lived in Tunstall in the mid 1980s.

Unfortunately, I never heard of this alleged UFO case until after I moved away.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Essan]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Hi Maybe...maybe not.
I did see I Know What I Saw but don't remember the section on Rendlesham , all these doco's get mixed up in my memory after a while
.
I will give it another view , thanx for the heads up .

Edit to add

Ok .....so I have reviewed the Rendlesham section of I Know What I Saw.
Thanx mate ... now I'm all confused again
.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by gortex]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Ok .....so I have reviewed the Rendlesham section of I Know What I Saw.
Thanx mate ... now I'm all confused again
.


Gortex.....

I'm curious.....

Are you "confused again" because of the material presented in Fox's documentary?

If so, what was the material in question?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


As i understand only the area in the immediate vicinity of the sightings was cut down, not the whole forest.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

So I guess in the absence of any tangible evidence to the contrary , I to have over the last few years come to the conclusion that the " British Roswell " case is nothing more than a misinterpretation , fueled by adrenalin and maybe even a little Christmas spirit .


LOL this has to be the biggest FAIL of a explanation ever! Im inclined to think this guy is trying to come off like a shock jock @ UFOligy? Kind of like trolling the subjec geeez . Insulting the intelligence of anyone with knowledge of the incident.


He is a funny guy

This case is one of the most compelling cases i can muster. One of my favorites is the Halt tape. This is the best documentary on it so far imo.



More recently Rick Bobo's testimony
www.earthfiles.com...



TODAY 30 YEARS LATER, FORMER DEPUTY BASE COMMANDER, LT. COL. CHARLES HALT, WENT ON THE RECORD IN A JUNE 25, 2009, PRESS RELEASE THAT SAID THE LIGHTS HE AND OTHERS SAW AT RAF BENTWATERS IN RENDLESHAM FOREST IN DECEMBER 1980 WERE ‘EXTRATERRESTRIAL IN ORIGIN.’ WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO COL. HALT'S COMMENT?

I would have to agree. I think it would be pretty arrogant to think in all the vastness of what’s out there in our universe and other universes that we’re the only living, half-way intelligent beings there are. I’m just not that arrogant.

IF THERE WERE EXTRATERRESTRIALS IN ADVANCED CRAFT INTERACTING WITHIN RENDLESHAM FOREST FOR AT LEAST THREE NIGHTS AND POSSIBLY LONGER, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE U. S. AND THE U. K. GOVERNMENTS SEEM TO HAVE A POLICY OF DENIAL ABOUT IT?

They’ve always denied everything like that, haven’t they? Don’t the governments always think they know what’s best for everybody?”



These craft cased several nuclear weapons during the 80's for some reason.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 14-8-2010 by Unknown Soldier]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 





I'm curious..... Are you "confused again" because of the material presented in Fox's documentary?

No .... not because of the documentary , because I am really 50/50 on this case , there are sooooo many good reasons why this case could be as Halt and Co described it and just as many why not .
I both believe and disbelieve , and that's confusing .
you could say I am maybe .. maybe not



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Gortex.....

OK.....I understand.....thanks for explaining that.


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Soldier
 
I'm sitting on the fence for Rendlesham. I believe the witness interviews, but *some* conflicts stop me from committing to either position. It's worth pointing out that Ridpath is willing to throw away all the reports as mirages, Venus and bloody-mindedness. Dr Dave Clarke is another UK skeptical guy and holds the bar damn high...he's investigated the case and isn't convinced either way.

I noticed in your extract one of the statements that irritate the **** out of me. It's this bad boy right here...


I would have to agree. I think it would be pretty arrogant to think in all the vastness of what’s out there in our universe and other universes that we’re the only living, half-way intelligent beings there are. I’m just not that arrogant.


Whenever I see it used it annoys me. It's meaningless and yet people say it like it 'proves' we're being visited by ET. A billion planets teeming with life of all shapes and colours doesn't automatically mean that they're all coming here. It's intellectual #wittery at it's shallowest.

The debunkers will use the exact same opposite of the argument...'I think it's human arrogance to assume that intelligent life would want to visit us. We're probably like ants.' Stupid SOBs. Why wouldn't intelligent life come and look? We spend billions a year studying bacteria, we cross continents to look for panda colonies in lost jungles. If our pet dogs could talk, we'd bloody well listen to them!

Once a week I'll see someone in a thread pull out the 'Billions of planets argument/defence' and I walk away. It's like the famous "Chewbacca Defence," it sounds great, it's meaningless.

End of rant....carry on



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
This is the complete chronology - pasting from my mailing list:

BBC initial article about Rendlesham Incident (August 11th) called "The Truth Is Not Out There" by Evan Davis available here:

news.bbc.co.uk...
miragemen.wordpress.com...

With the connection of recent UFO News from UK and Brazil they have even opened possibility for comments here:
Should We Take UFO Sightings Seriously:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Check Jim Penniston's reaction to BBC Piece posted by Dave Haith here:
www.ufoupdateslist.com...

Evan Davis piece lead to quite a stir and reaction - check here:
www.ufoupdateslist.com...
www.ufoupdateslist.com...
www.ufoupdateslist.com...
www.ufoupdateslist.com...
www.ufoupdateslist.com...
www.ufoupdateslist.com...

BBC Article is in fact a companion piece of the radio show Today from August 11th.

Audio of the Rendlesham Piece is included in the article. I have also uploaded it here -
Download link:
www.adrive.com...

I have also processed 3 hours from the complete show to find possible more references and comments about that piece directly from the studio-I was interested to see how it will be announced.
Here is new extraction – carefuly edited with great care.

Radio show:
Today with Evan Davis & John Humphrys
BBC Radio 4, 06:00am Sunday 11th Wednesday 2010
- Besides Rendlesham piece and comments included also is a meteor shower piece so you could compare different approaches between those stories.

So you will never have to listen the whole 180 minutes. Here is everything you will need boiled down to 10,49 minutes that counts.

Download link
www.adrive.com...


And the best gem for the end.
Interview with James Penniston & John Burroughs in resposnse to BBC Piece on Bentwaters - check here:
theparanormalcafe.podomatic.com...
Download link for Audio Here:
theparanormalcafe.podomatic.com...

Host Robert Simcox tried also to get amateur astronomer Ian Ridpath for the show (involved in the BBC piece) where he received this response from him:
"Thank you for the invitation but this isn't my constituency, I'm afraid".

He also tried to get Mark Pilkington (author of a new book Mirage Men - also involved in the BBC piece) who suggested to Rob to contact Ridpath

A must listen


Best Wishes



[edit on 17-8-2010 by uforadio]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by uforadio
 



Host Robert Simcox tried also to get amateur astronomer Ian Ridpath for the show (involved in the BBC piece) where he received this response from him:

"Thank you for the invitation but this isn't my constituency, I'm afraid".


What an odd thing to say. He's only got a whole website dedicated to Rendlsham being a catalogue of errors and pranks committed by idiots!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
Can't really dispute or support the close encounter accounts, but regarding the "Lighthouse theory", I'm pretty sure I saw the lighthouse caretaker in an interview explain [and show] how the light cannot shine in the direction of the forest due to a reflector behind the lamp.
The question that people seem to overlook when pointing this out is, can the light sometimes be seen in a direction it's not shining in? On a perfectly clear night perhaps not, but it doesn't take much haze in the air to reflect light.

I've driven along hilly roads where there wasn't much haze in the air at all, yet as I drove toward the top of the hill, I knew in advance to turn off my high beams before I could see any car because I could see the headlights of the car coming the other direction reflecting off a slight haze in the air. Hasn't this ever happened to any of you?

Or what about the car dealerships that shine giant spotlights into the sky when they have a big promotion? They are more comparable to a lighthouse light perhaps, and we can see those light beams streaming into the sky even if they're not shining right at us.

And the lighthouse lights are much brighter than just car headlights. In fact, can you look at the moon at night and say it's impossible to see sunlight because the Earth is blocking it? The moon reflects the sunlight and if there's any haze in the air it is also capable of reflecting light. Light doesn't have to shine right at you in order for you to be able to see the light, and while I don't necessarily expect a lighthouse caretaker to know this, I expect some of the rest of you to know this.

So while the caretaker may be right that the lighthouse light didn't shine directly back at land, only someone ignorant of how spotlights can be seen even when they're not shining right at you, would assume that means it was impossible to see the lighthouse light.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]



new topics




 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join