The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

page: 12
180
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I had started to go through your assertions one by one, but I really cant be bothered, and Im at work at the moment.

All I would say is, go and do some proper research and then make some proclamations. This case doesnt rise and fall on one persons testimony. And yes, there are multiple witnesses further to the ones you listed. Greer has nothing to do with this case.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacehoax1
Well...where are the multiple witnesses? All we ever hear about are Halt, Jim Penniston, John Burroughs, and some guy named Larry. There were large numbers that accompanied these main witnesses, except none would verify their version of what had been seen. Too scared? Nonsense. A Colonel was among those making the assertions.

There was no initial story from Penniston "touching" the craft when he first reported his version of events to investigators
Penniston's story did change over time, and there are substantial differences between his version of events and Burroughs' version. Halt's recording seems to confirm he was looking at a lighthouse, though there was a Bolide earlier in the incident. The more I looked into this case, the more I lost respect for Penniston as it became more apparent he was fabricating things.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Penniston- well maybe, but Halt has repeatedly stated it was not the lighthouse- everyone on the base knew where and what the lighthouse was, and the idea that the deputy base commander and his entire group 'mistook' it for a UFO for such a long period is, quite frankly, laughable. They describe watching the object coming from different directions to right above them, at one point a beam of light coming straight down at them, at another point being observed to be shining down into the base weapons storage area- I cant see this being a 'mistaken' lighthouse or a comet.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Thunda because: spelling



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Penniston- well maybe, but Halt has repeatedly stated it was not the lighthouse- everyone on the base knew where and what the lighthouse was, and the idea that the deputy base commander and his entire group 'mistook' it for a UFO for such a long period is, quite frankly, laughable.
I agree it's laughable, as I've laughed at it myself, but indeed that appears to be one of the events which occurred, not related to the bolide, which was separate from the lighthouse. The 5 second interval on Halt's recording is the most damning evidence they are looking at the lighthouse, as it matches the lighthouse interval EXACTLY.


They describe watching the object coming from different directions to right above them, at one point a beam of light coming straight down at them, at another point being observed to be shining down into the base weapons storage area- I cant see this being a 'mistaken' lighthouse or a comet.
I didn't hear anything about a comet...that's normally not a bolide. Bolides do indeed light up the ground. Also, you have to take into account the inconsistencies in the stories as told by all the witnesses. They don't all tell the same story, and that's part of the problem.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Thunda
Penniston- well maybe, but Halt has repeatedly stated it was not the lighthouse- everyone on the base knew where and what the lighthouse was, and the idea that the deputy base commander and his entire group 'mistook' it for a UFO for such a long period is, quite frankly, laughable.
I agree it's laughable, as I've laughed at it myself, but indeed that appears to be one of the events which occurred, not related to the bolide, which was separate from the lighthouse. The 5 second interval on Halt's recording is the most damning evidence they are looking at the lighthouse, as it matches the lighthouse interval EXACTLY.

I think you would have to have a bit stronger evidence than "he speaks approximately every 5 seconds, therefore lighthouse" before you could write that one off. How do explain the fact that they knew the lighthouse well, and yet no-one says 'hmmm, sure it isnt the lighthouse we are looking at?'. It just does not make sense.


They describe watching the object coming from different directions to right above them, at one point a beam of light coming straight down at them, at another point being observed to be shining down into the base weapons storage area- I cant see this being a 'mistaken' lighthouse or a comet.
I didn't hear anything about a comet...that's normally not a bolide. Bolides do indeed light up the ground. Also, you have to take into account the inconsistencies in the stories as told by all the witnesses. They don't all tell the same story, and that's part of the problem.


Bolide, comet, lighthouse- non of these things hover and send a beam of light down. This was seen by several different witnesses in different locations. Also, you dont get to be deputy base commander of the biggest NATO airbase in Europe by not being able to identify lighthouses from UFO's. Think of how much Halt had to loose by going on the record- it was only because he had no other option than to do so that the Halt memo exists, and believe me, Im sure he would of loved to have been able to write it off as a lighthouse at the time. He says himself that he knew it was not exactly 'career enhancing' to be putting in UFO reports, and that he set off that night with every intention of making absolute sense of the issue. He is also on the record saying that 'we all knew the Orfordness lighthouse well, it was a local landmark. When people suggest that is what we saw, I say that is ridiculous'.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Thunda
Penniston- well maybe, but Halt has repeatedly stated it was not the lighthouse- everyone on the base knew where and what the lighthouse was, and the idea that the deputy base commander and his entire group 'mistook' it for a UFO for such a long period is, quite frankly, laughable.
I agree it's laughable, as I've laughed at it myself, but indeed that appears to be one of the events which occurred, not related to the bolide, which was separate from the lighthouse. The 5 second interval on Halt's recording is the most damning evidence they are looking at the lighthouse, as it matches the lighthouse interval EXACTLY.


They describe watching the object coming from different directions to right above them, at one point a beam of light coming straight down at them, at another point being observed to be shining down into the base weapons storage area- I cant see this being a 'mistaken' lighthouse or a comet.
I didn't hear anything about a comet...that's normally not a bolide. Bolides do indeed light up the ground. Also, you have to take into account the inconsistencies in the stories as told by all the witnesses. They don't all tell the same story, and that's part of the problem.


How many more times will you post this completely inaccurate tosh? Thirkettle himself, has admitted on camera,you cannot see the lighthouse from the sight of the Halt incident.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Bolide, comet, lighthouse- non of these things hover and send a beam of light down. This was seen by several different witnesses in different locations.
Even if there was another object like an alien spaceship, that sent a beam of light down, that doesn't mean that Halt wasn't looking at the lighthouse in his recording.


Also, you dont get to be deputy base commander of the biggest NATO airbase in Europe by not being able to identify lighthouses from UFO's.
Just like you could claim you don't get to be a general if you can't tell a missile launch from a jet contrail but that happened too. I don't know what causes you and some others to attribute infallible qualities to military commanders but I personally knew a general quite well and they are people like everyone else, and not infallible in their perceptions.


Think of how much Halt had to loose by going on the record- it was only because he had no other option than to do so that the Halt memo exists, and believe me, Im sure he would of loved to have been able to write it off as a lighthouse at the time. He says himself that he knew it was not exactly 'career enhancing' to be putting in UFO reports, and that he set off that night with every intention of making absolute sense of the issue. He is also on the record saying that 'we all knew the Orfordness lighthouse well, it was a local landmark. When people suggest that is what we saw, I say that is ridiculous'.
Yeah he said that. But none of that carries the weight of his recording...that's the best evidence we have of what actually happened.


Originally posted by FireMoon
How many more times will you post this completely inaccurate tosh? Thirkettle himself, has admitted on camera,you cannot see the lighthouse from the sight of the Halt incident.
How do you reconcile that with these photos that show otherwise?

Was the flashing light really the lighthouse?


Although a shield blocks the beam of the lighthouse from the town of Orford itself, it does not extend far enough to block the beam from this part of the forest, as may be clear from my enlarged picture.



Was the flashing light really the lighthouse? - continued


What follows on this page requires some knowledge of the case to be fully appreciated. However, the main points can be summarized as follows:

1. The testimony of the main eyewitnesses on Night One and of Col. Halt on Night Two confirm that the flashing light seen on both nights lay in the direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse.

2. Evidence from the audiotape made by Col Halt on Night Two shows that the light flashed at the same rate as the Orford Ness lighthouse. Later on the tape, Halt described the light as lying “clear off to the coast”.

3. Although Col. Halt maintains he saw the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast, it is actually east of where he stood. Evidently Col. Halt confused it with another flashing light in the southeast, probably the more distant Shipwash lightship.

4. His mistake arose because he was used to seeing the Orford Ness lighthouse in the southeast from his home base of Bentwaters, which lies to the north of Woodbridge.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Why don't you actually go and watch the video where Halt takes Thirkettle to the site and listen to what Thirkettle has to say instead of constantly posting outdated and inaccurate information? Ridpath can't be trusted further than you could throw him when it comes to UFOs, the bloke habitually completely ignores the facts and makes up his own data to suit his own explanations. Ridpath's that good an astronomer he thinks Venus can be seen some 30 degrees above the horizon, in Britain, at 2 am in the morning in late October.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I don't know if it has been mentioned here, but do you guys know that the lighthouse has a metal shield to prevent its light from shining into the forest? I think it was in one of the History Channel documentaries that they not only showed the shield but had a local person on hand who explained the shield's purpose and said that it had been in place before the lighthouse even started operation.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
I don't know if it has been mentioned here, but do you guys know that the lighthouse has a metal shield to prevent its light from shining into the forest? I think it was in one of the History Channel documentaries that they not only showed the shield but had a local person on hand who explained the shield's purpose and said that it had been in place before the lighthouse even started operation.


Exactly- you can see it in the photograph. Its common to land based lighthouses so their light doesnt spill across the countryside- another reason it cannot be the lighthouse.

Arbitrageur, your entire case is based on the timing of Halts comments on the tape being similar to the speed the lighthouse rotates at. A pretty tenous link I would say. I still think that someone out of the many people present over the 2 nights would have suggested it as a solution had it been that obvious, and I believe Halt when he says that everyone who worked at the two bases was more than aware of the lighthouse's presence and would never have got the two things mixed up. Afterall it would have normally been visible to aircraft taking off and landing at both bases, so would have been on the flight details for all aircraft arriving and leaving as present on the landscape. Yet somehow, the deputy base commander is unaware of this, and goes on a wild goose chase with several men in the woods, and would rather make it a UFO than an often spotted feature in the local area. I think not......



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
..

Arbitrageur, your entire case is based on the timing of Halts comments on the tape being similar to the speed the lighthouse rotates at. A pretty tenous link I would say......

Really, in comparison to claiming you saw/touched a UFO? I think the discovery of the link between periods of light flashes and Halt's testimony is excellent research material, simply excellent.

That said, other facts, as mentioned in this thread, suggests that it was not the lighthouse (or just the lighthouse), a combination of UFO/lighthouse sightings could be behind the confusion.


Originally posted by Thunda
..Yet somehow, the deputy base commander is unaware of this, and goes on a wild goose chase with several men in the woods, and would rather make it a UFO than an often spotted feature in the local area. I think not......

Who knows? If they were agitated enough, people just don't think clearly when stressed/panicked.

Think of the Mexico air force story with UFOs that Discovery showed were oil wells showing up on IR-cameras. The pilots involved hold on to the story. Most likely because it's embarrasing if they were 'fooled'.

edit on 20-8-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Aah yes Rendlesham. Long before I joined ATS I read this and Gazrok's threads on Britain's most famous UFO case ,a lot of other websites and watched a few documentaries. On the face of it all it seems a nailed on case with credible military witnesses and a 2nd (maybe even a third night of events) that adds to the mystery. But that isn't exactly true once you dig beyond the surface.

I haven't time to read through the whole of this thread again. I think everyone is familiar with the general story . If not then go back through the OP and read Ridpath's website. www.ianridpath.com...


Beyond the regular witnesses who have appeared on TV - (Halt, Penniston, Burroughs and Warren) a number of other witnesses have also given statements. Bob Ball, Monroe Nevilles and Ed Cabansag have all appeared in various documentaries. All dismiss the Ridpath lighthouse theory. Except for on the first night when John Burroughs has conceded that they did realise a light in the distance was coming from the Orford Ness Lighthouse. He remained adamant that this was not the light they had originally seen in the forest.

Ref : books.google.co.uk... 7krA&hl=en&ei=aIGlTp3DIoyT8gOk5t2GCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=true

The above article confirms that 3 shooting stars were seen over England on Christmas night over the Thames Estuary. It is possible that the fragments triggered a security alert at the RAF twin bases of Bentwaters and Woodbridge which then disappeared as they burnt out. Nick Pope claims that RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr noticed a blip that stayed for three or four sweeps before disappearing after reports from Bentwaters Tower on Dec 26th. Normally these blips mean nothing by themselves. But this was the same time that reports were coming in from the USAF.

A third shooting star or bright comet was reported as "10 times brighter than Sirius" and appearing at 2:45 hrs on Boxing Day. Which is close to the time that John Burroughs, Jim Penniston and Ed Cabansag ventured out in the forest. I can't say for definite if this is what they saw but circumstantial evidence suggests it may have been.

Penniston claims to have photographed the craft, touched it, noted strange markings on the side and received a binary download on the 25th/26th December. Burroughs who was standing within 10 yards or so does not recall any of this and did not see any structured craft just lights. Penniston's story has also grown exponentially from the time he gave an interview for ITV's "Strange But True" in 1994 where he mentions only lights and symbols. He doesn't produce his notebook and makes no mention of binary codes back then. Those stories come later.

Strange But True can be seen here in 3 parts:







On the following night (inbetween this and Halt's night and according to an interview Burroughs gave on the Paracast in 2009) further lights were seen. A female Lieutenant supposedly went out into the forest. Her vehicle stalled and she saw a blue ball size light fly through the windscreen of her vehicle. She was hysterical and lost her composure and was sent home.

Halt's night of the 27th running into the early morning of the 28th of December is the oddest of all. More lights were seen in the forest, Halt and his small band of men saw beams of light, detected radiation and witnessed lights moving through the forest "dripping what seemed to be molten metal". Larry Warren claims this was the night he saw a group of small aliens communicating with a senior officer in the forest. Although he is the only witness to make that claim.

It all seems quite implausible that trained military personnel along with their Deputy base Commander could mistake a lighthouse on 2 or even 3 nights for a UFO in the forest. However had the men ever ventured into the forest on foot in the dark of an English winter night before? It also seems implausible that a red alert status was not declared if beams of light were striking down from unknowns in the sky onto a nuclear weapons storage area. Halt has never gone on record to confirm why this wasn't the case.

continued
edit on 20-8-2012 by mirageman because: links details
edit on 20-8-2012 by mirageman because: youtube links still not working!!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There have been many "down to earth" explanations since the 1980s. The lighthouse mentioned, a USAF police car flashing it's lights, a burning manure truck and even a psy-ops experiment. The police car and manure truck stories are so flimsy they can be dismissed. Surely NATO or the US military wouldn't conduct a psychological test over Christmas without Halt knowing? Tensions in the Soviet Bloc were also rising at the time with concerns over Poland.

In 2010 the favoured theory by BBC Radio Suffolk was that an Apollo Rescue capsule was dumped in the woods after dangling from a helicopter as part of a Christmas prank that went wrong. The problem with that theory is that the British Police were called out on the morning of the 26th to the alleged landing sight and Penniston also claimed to have made plaster casts of the "three holes in the ground" that morning. If the capsule had been returned to base then how were the events of the following nights, when Halt ventured out into the forest explained?

Nothing is quite as it seems in this case and my gut feeling is that we aren't being told the truth by some of the witnesses. It could be that USAF were covering something up and needed a story to explain why they had ventured out onto UK sovereign territory. Maybe the original witnesses are looking for a book or film deal (Larry Warren has already written his account)? Or perhaps something so strange happened that we cannot comprehend and it twisted each individual's sense of reality so much that we simply cannot make any sense of it?

Rendlesham or Rendle-SHAM?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Exactly- you can see it in the photograph. Its common to land based lighthouses so their light doesnt spill across the countryside- another reason it cannot be the lighthouse.
That's not what I see...I see the shield blocking light which would shine to the left, and not light shining to the right or directly at the photographer.


Arbitrageur, your entire case is based on the timing of Halts comments on the tape being similar to the speed the lighthouse rotates at.
No that's not true. Not only does the timing match perfectly, but also, Halt states the direction of the flashing light as 110 degrees which is the direction of the Orford Ness lighthouse, and he describes the location of it as off to the coast which is exactly where the lighthouse was:

Transcript of Col. Halt’s tape

HALT: 2:44. We’re at the far side of the farmer’s...the second farmer’s field and made sighting again about 110 degrees. This looks like it’s clear off to the coast. It’s right on the horizon. Moves about a bit and flashes from time to time.
Note the direction, 110 degrees, which was actually later measured more carefully to be closer to 100 degrees, and a 10 degree discrepancy is well within a reasonable error limit under these conditions of trying to take a compass reading while walking around. And of course the "flashes from time to time" match the lighthouse interval.

"This looks like it’s clear off to the coast. It’s right on the horizon." Halt said it, and this is more specific evidence than just the flashing interval...it's a specific location off to the coast at a 110 degree heading. Isn't that exactly where the lighthouse would be?

All of this evidence is extremely convincing. But if that doesn't convince you, there's even more evidence. Halt apparently finally realized he was looking at the lighthouse, and he changed his story about the direction of the flashing light presumably to save face and make it seem he wasn't looking at the lighthouse, but unfortunately he couldn't change the original recording where he says it's 110 degrees, so now he's got a contradiction:

Was the flashing light really the lighthouse? - continued

Following a visit to the site with a TV crew, Halt has finally realized that the lighthouse is not 30 or so degrees off to the right from where he was standing, as he had claimed for so long, but almost in line with the farmhouse in front of him, as my photographs show. So he has now changed his story. What he now says is that the flashing UFO was to the left of the farmhouse and, moreover, that its light was reflecting off the farmhouse windows – a new detail we have not previously heard (see this YouTube clip from a talk he gave in 2009 October).

Unfortunately, this revised position does not match his compass bearing of 110 degrees, which places the flashing UFO firmly to the right of the farmhouse. So Halt’s change of story, an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that his UFO lay in the same direction as the lighthouse, introduces a glaring contradiction with the position of the flashing light he reported at the time.


I think the only people who think the flashing light at 110 degrees is not the lighthouse are people who haven't studied Halt's recording, and his subsequent change in his story to try to hide the fact that even he now realizes that's what it was (in spite of the fact he says it's ridiculous).

By the way whatever Halt said was shooting beams of light at the ground was to the south, so that wasn't the lighthouse. So there was the lighthouse, which I think there's very little doubt that's what it was (since even Halt apparently now realizes that as evidenced by his attempt to contradict the 110 degree heading), and then there was something else. I don't know what the something else beaming lights down to the ground was, but what I do know is that other people who should have been able to see it, didn't see it.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


Then again , shortly before the incident a popular pilot from the squadron based at Bentwaters suddenly committed suicide and several ground crew refused, point blank, to work in one of the hangers at night when alone. There were also more than a couple civilian sightings of UFOs in the weeks leading up to the incident and these, to the best of my knowledge, carried on into February after the incident. The area around Bentwaters has been a "hotspot" for weird stuff going back hundreds, if not thousands of years. As someone else pointed out, the locals with a long family history tend to take it in their stride, however from "Black Shuck" to modern day UFOs, the area is steeped in high strangeness.

As for Ridpath and his meteors and space debris. These events took place around midnight all his events how no more to do with the timeline than the British setting fire to the sea nearby to Bentwaters to practise anti invasion tactics in 1940, I'm sure Ridpath would manage to shoehorn that in as well though. given half a chance. Ridpath claims to be this expert in astronomy and yet, he seems very reticent to tell the truth. On any clear night you will see several meteors at least and usually one pretty damn bright one, then again, admitting that, shoots a huge hole in his evidence, I leave it to people to work out quite why he doesn't mention it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I can tell you for sure, lot's of observations and reflection tests and light tests at night were done during the night... you can absolutely exclude lighthouse reflection as an option - the light of the lighthouse did not produce blue and red-orange colorts, and if seen as probably white light, something more was seen that night.

So either there was indeed something besides the lighthouse, or the whole story of an object was made up. Lighthouse - no. It was with different and pulsating light.

Now I wanna talk about the 2nd part which is a serious Questionmark - as I have stated in the other thread, this isn't about just seeing a UFO. According to the story, Penniston saw a landed aircraft the 2nd time, with symbols on it, Symbols that are too similar and seem made out of Alchemist symbols to be ALIEN.

First of all.. let's say this did happen with the landed craft w symbols... how the hell does Penniston see BINARY code and WRITES that DOWN, and then this Binary code decoded appears as 'Exploration Humanity' - isn't this all fabricated?? This second part is... not very believable
edit on 20-8-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This is Kick A$$ thread, great job.

I loved James Penniston on Larry King especially, just too much information to call this incident a sham.

Have you heard of the binary code that was supposed to go through jim's mind when he was near the craft?
Do you think it is true? I found that interesting. I looked through the thread but couldn't find any info on it (unless I missed something. But found this link:
www.therendleshamforestincident.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Amazing what some random furtling around Google can turn up. Given the number of views this video has on Youtube, unless it's posted elsewhere on Youtube I suspect many might not have seen it before, or since it was originally aired.

What is very interesting about this video is the interview with one Gordon Levett a man who grew up in the local area , knows it like the back of his hand and actually witnessed himself some of the incident. Notice how his testimony has, in effect, been totally sidelined by the likes of Ridpath and ignored, as it totally contradicts the idea of the Lighthouse being responsible.

Anyway, the CNN report on the incident from 1984.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon

What is very interesting about this video is the interview with one Gordon Levett a man who grew up in the local area , knows it like the back of his hand and actually witnessed himself some of the incident. Notice how his testimony has, in effect, been totally sidelined by the likes of Ridpath and ignored, as it totally contradicts the idea of the Lighthouse being responsible.


In the context of Ridpaths investigation, which focuses on the claims of the airmen, this mans testimony is irrelevant.
edit on 20/8/2012 by cripmeister because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by FireMoon

What is very interesting about this video is the interview with one Gordon Levett a man who grew up in the local area , knows it like the back of his hand and actually witnessed himself some of the incident. Notice how his testimony has, in effect, been totally sidelined by the likes of Ridpath and ignored, as it totally contradicts the idea of the Lighthouse being responsible.


In the context of Ridpaths investigation, which focuses on the claims of the airmen, this mans testimony is irrelevant.
edit on 20/8/2012 by cripmeister because: Spelling


Only if you're interested in propaganda and not the truth is it not relevant.





new topics
top topics
 
180
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join