Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

page: 3
180
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 


Do you mean in the Halt tape??

If so then here it is....(sorry if not)...

The full tape





Google Video Link



And yeah, I can remember reading about that as well, apparently the pulsing of the object that they was seeing was apparently almost exactly the same as the lighthouse which seems to have given the lighthouse theory a lot of credibility IMO.

But as far as I'm aware and contrary to what many believe you can in fact see the lighthouse in Rendlesham forest, but you can only see it in certain locations.

Look at these 2 images below for example...




Even from such a short distance you seem to be able to see the lighthouse and then suddenly it's seemingly gone which could explain how the object disappeared.

But then again how does it explain them seeing the object from the base itself moving into the forest and then the men seeing the object up close and then shooting off into the sky?

Anyway, this is what the lighthouse apparently looks like at night.



Doesn't seem like it could make much difference anyway IMO as the object would see far away and not close like the men claim it was.

Oh and speaking of what the men say, here's what they say about the lighthouse theory itself...



John Burroughs - Airmen first class at time - present on first night
"There is no way that many people were fooled by that lighthouse...There is just no way that we were fooled, something actually went on on out there."

Jim Penniston - Staff Sergeant at time - present on first night
[Arguing with Vince Thurkettle] "You know, we've worked out here for months. We know where the lighthouse is, it's just so ridiculous to bring that up."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

Edward Cabansag - Airman at time - present on first night
"It [the UFO] was to the right of the lighthouse" "... It wasn't the lighthouse."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"I knew where the lighthouse was. This thing was not it. I saw the lighthouse as well but I never mentioned it [on the tape]. Why should I? Everybody present knew what that was!"

"A lighthouse doesn’t move through the forest; the lighthouse doesn’t go up and down, it doesn’t explode, doesn’t change shape, size - doesn’t send down beams of light from the sky”.

"I don't want to talk to people that tell me I was looking at the lighthouse... I could see the lighthouse... I knew where the lighthouse was. That's ludicrous."

"They [the sceptics] weren't there that night, I certainly wish some of them had been - they might have had a different opinion of things. But they're entitled to their opinion, they certainly are. I know what happened. I was there."

Steve La Plume - Airmen first class at time - present on second or third night
"I mean, come on here, this is not rocket science. I saw something, Busty [Adrian Bustinza] saw something, [Larry] Warren saw something.
Everyone there saw something. Perhaps on different nights, perhaps with a different perspective but we did not see a light house and mistake it for a bloody UFO.

[...] I am personally offended by the fact that anyone can even think that we are so stupid as to believe what we saw was a dammed light house[...]"

Larry Warren - A1C - present on second or third night
"The British press always brings up astronomer Ian Ridpath's insane lighthouse theory as the cause of the UFO incidents. USAF security police are highly trained people, and I'm sure all Bentwaters veterans must find Ridpath's ramblings insulting in the extreme".

Gregory Battram - A1C at time - present on second/third night
"I just wish I knew why those things landed and what they wanted - isn't that the most important question? No lighthouses and theories from people who don't have a clue..."

Vince Thurkettle - forester at time - first to suggest the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "they [the sceptics] take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those that suit the situation"

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the skeptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."
(Source)

Personally I don’t believe in the lighthouse theory but if you can give me a reason to do so then I’ll be more than happy to change my mind but I just can't see them confusing 2 (possibly 3) nights of events with a lighthouse miles away.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by LiveForever8
 

Btw, out of curiosity, was it Adrian Bustinza who was with him at the time you met Warren? I'm only asking out of curiosity and because he was claimed to have been with Warren during the incident in 1980.


To be honest mate I can't remember. He (Warrens colleague) wasn't actually there at the conference but Warren played his 'never before seen' (I think) tapes of the regression with this mans permission.

Warren was sat off to the side and got all teary-eyed at one point, the regressions themselves were strange.

I think Warren claimed that either before or since the Rendlesham incident these men have experienced possible abductions that they didn't remember (i.e missing time). If not abductions then alternate UFO interactions/sightings.

I could be wrong on that though, my memory ain't what it used to be



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I DON'T BELIEVE that a galactic alien ship landed in front of those USAF SPs. Merely google --- 67th ARRS --- That unit is possibly responsible for a hoax upon those SPs that got somewhat out of hand.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Hmm I would assume it’s Adrian Bustinza then as he was there with Warren during the incident (assuming Warren was there in the first place) and he was also there when Warren told his mother after being warned about telling people with the phrase by the debriefers “Bullets are cheap”

I could be wrong but it seems likely it was him anyway IMO.


And I've never heard about any abductions after or Before the Rendlesham Incident in all honesty.


...I guess I gotz some researching to do.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Outstanding Posting, and I am awed by the research job you did. Simply great!

This incident is practically unique in UFO 'history' in that it's main witnesses are all military personnel, who spoke about it relatively soon afterwards (within 25 years). Unlike Roswell, where almost half a century elapsed by the time it became well known (which doesn't take away from its potential authenticity); these witnesses came forward while investigators could still interview them, and compare/contrast evidence. And the bottom line is that after all this time, this incident remains one of the most convincing.

Indeed, it is almost a harbinger of things to come, in that the 'triangle' type craft mentioned here became the new standard UFO sighted throughout the world. I have no explanations for what these craft may have been/are, however, I think we can all agree that they were not something routine and 'natural'.

And to answer the folks that allege the incident was a hoax perpetrated on the Air Base personnel by others, I say they really don't understand the situation at hand. In 1979, during some of the highest tension in the Cold War, assembling a group of people in the dark and initiating pyrotechniques of any sort, on a holiday night outside a US interceptor base in the UK would be a good way to possibly get shot or at least arrested. Security was taken very seriously then. In fact, the most interesting thing about this story is that the Base didn't go on alert and assemble a much bigger force to investigate. Which leads me to believe that from the beginning, something struck the observers as unworldly. When the initial investigating teams entered the woods, a discovery of groups of individuals, with anything like possible weapons would have generated exactly this type of response.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by simonecharisse
 


Can you add a link if that's ok as I can't find anything linking the "67th ARRS" with a hoaxing at Rendlesham?


And if you could at least explain why I'm wrong and something extraordinary in fact Never happened then I'd love to hear it. (seriously)



[edit on 16-8-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the lighthouse either.."yes that is the tape of the time/recording manner"

I also think that some of the "different nights", the area is farming fields, and in one of your pics there is a big agriculture combine, between tractor, and house windows and mirrors ....I think the light could be ...only one light, but seen as multiples from different points of views, that are not able to be seen from all angles at all times.

I'm not saying I think this is 100% but by odds and simplest explanaions alone it my thoughts...


I'm seeing many other angles to look at now from other posters and yourself ....I'll be following this thread ty again...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 



....I think the light could be ...only one light, but seen as multiples from different points of views, that are not able to be seen from all angles at all times.


Well, personally I don’t agree that was the cause here but I think It’s definitely possible and something that should be considered still.


That being so, I still can’t help wonder if that is the cause how did the object move and how did Penniston and Burroughs allegedly get close enough to be able to tell it was a metallic object with strange hieroglyphs on the side of it?


(Assuming they're not lying/exaggerating ofc.)

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I have to say this was a joyful way to spend some time on my afternoon here reading this. Yes I read it all! Very very good job putting it together.


To sum up my opinion in few words or less, This really strikes me as the elephant in the kitchen that a lot of folks refuse to see. Incredible really when you think about it. It is not like it is just one night this goes on. It happens for three nights. It doesn't last for a few mere moments, it last for hours. It has multiple witness, service man and townspeople alike. It has tapes, pictures, and geiger readings. It mentions the animals being in a bit of a frenzy. I highly doubt the lighthouse would cause panic amongst the animals.

To me there is just a tremendous amount of evidence, which usually 97% of the time you just don't get. Sometimes I think you could slap people and they would still say they were struck by a fly.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and to me this fire has a Lot of light. I think I am happy that I can see the obvious elephant!
Again awesome post!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonecharisse
I DON'T BELIEVE that a galactic alien ship landed in front of those USAF SPs. Merely google --- 67th ARRS --- That unit is possibly responsible for a hoax upon those SPs that got somewhat out of hand.


This is exactly the second explanation I thought (first was a mass psychological delusion). I think I remember to read somewhere that they messed up something (maybe something to do with radioactivity) and then tried to cover up it with a fabrication story.
I know I used too much "maybe", "I think". I have to bring some links but can't find right now.
Again, fantastic read OP.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 




I think I remember to read somewhere that they messed up something (maybe something to do with radioactivity) and then tried to cover up it with a fabrication story.


Well It's all possible until proven otherwise IMO.


And yes, I read about them messing up with radioactivity and this is all nothing but a cover story as well (although I wouldn't think aliens would be a common cover story really) but I'm not too sure where from now.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Excellent OP, well thought out, researched and presented.....I'm going to have to print it all out and sit back for a read. I think I'm pretty well versed in this incident, but anything new I can learn is welcome...

Thanks...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
S+F for a very well put together thread. Its a very interesting case, there was also some strange activity in 1956 involving a radar operation at bentwaters and other bases in the east of England. ufologie.net...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Amazing thread, very informative and clear.


The one thing that gets me about this incident is the fact that neither of the two bases sent out an helicopter to investigate further. With all the activity you would really expect them to do this first and foremost. I also remember, not too long ago, that a couple of soldiers/airmen (cant remember which) came forward and admitted to playing the prank that built up into this case. I think they claimed they'd played around in the woods, using the lights from their jeeps and other things, not sure how this would have explained night two and three myself though.


CaF



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
Amazing thread, very informative and clear.


The one thing that gets me about this incident is the fact that neither of the two bases sent out an helicopter to investigate further.


Thank you!


...but just to clear something up, as far as I'm aware a Helicopter was in fact present on the third night at the very least...Assuming Warren isn't lying of course.

From my opening posts..


Warren as well as Bustinza both claim that helicopters were also present here as well. They even heard a bizarre radio transmission them which reads allegedly that the pilots can be heard saying 'here it comes' 'here it comes' before a red light flew in from the distance.. completely silent the entire time.


And then this....


"it moved in, in a downward arc, so fast. Stopped and hovered about 20 feet off the ground. It was the size of a basketball, American basketball. [It was] self illuminated, not quite red, yet that's the closest I can describe it."
(Source) - Source is from my opening posts -




I also remember, not too long ago, that a couple of soldiers/airmen (cant remember which) came forward and admitted to playing the prank that built up into this case. I think they claimed they'd played around in the woods, using the lights from their jeeps and other things, not sure how this would have explained night two and three myself though.


I believe your referring to ‘Kevin Conde’.

Here's the part of my thread where he is first mentioned. You may have to scroll down though.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
mm interesting, i think that they walked in a time dilation, the ufo slows down time near it in a field and so they can do what ever they want for hours, while outside of that time field, it just looks like the ufo was there for just 4 minutes or so, now i see also and understand how they travel they slow down time very interesting, i think you can do the same with a coil, put enough power in it and bend time or make a field where you slow down time... its nice to try if you have the cash...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by simonecharisse
 


I agree on the prank by the 67th even down to the capsule/object matching in general description to the rescue craft used in training.....

However concerning the notebook and the familiarity of the witnesses to the area ....

" Burroughs and Cabansag confirm that they chased the lighthouse for about two miles before realizing what it was. Evidently they were not as familiar with the lighthouse as proponents of this case like to claim – see also Point 8 below. In an interview on The Paracast in 2009 Burroughs stated he had never been out in the woods before that night. Penniston and Cabansag were newly arrived on base and were no more familiar with the woods than he was (scroll to 08:40, 25:35 and 33:15 in the Paracast interview).
4. In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes (see picture below). However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.” So what are we to make of Penniston’s claims? ""

source..www.ianridpath.com...



[edit on 16-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 



....I think the light could be ...only one light, but seen as multiples from different points of views, that are not able to be seen from all angles at all times.


Well, personally I don’t agree that was the cause here but I think It’s definitely possible and something that should be considered still.


That being so, I still can’t help wonder if that is the cause how did the object move and how did Penniston and Burroughs allegedly get close enough to be able to tell it was a metallic object with strange hieroglyphs on the side of it?


(Assuming they're not lying/exaggerating ofc.)

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Rising Against]



In his original statements, they didnt get that close to it at all , in fact he is not noted as being that near by other witnesses either.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


He was close enough to write down notes of the object and describe it in detail as well as the markings on it for example.

So, I'd say that was pretty close.

ETA:

Time is short right now so I can only add this one link here before I go offline for the night.


The top portion is producing mainly white light, which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light peers out the bottom. At the left side centre is a bluish light, and on the other side, red. The lights seem to be moulded as part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually moulding into the fabric of the craft'.

"As I was taking notes, I also memorized what was in front of me for what seemed like hours, but was in fact only minutes. Finally, I unleashed my camera-case cover and brought the camera up to focus. I began snapping photo after photo.

[Soon] I had already taken all 36 pictures on my roll of film. On the smooth exterior shell there was writing of some kind, but I couldn't quite distinguish it, so I moved up to it. It was three-inch lettering, rather symbols that stretched for the length of two feet, maybe a little more."

"I touched the symbols, and I could feel the shapes as if they were inscribed or etched or engraved, like a diamond cut on glass."
(Source)

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The Rave party is just not even on the radar (sic). Firstly this was 1980 not 1987 and secondly, that winter was one of the coldest and most miserable i have ever lived through in Britain. Temperatures were down as low as -19 degrees at night and it didn't rise above zero for days at a time. Large swathes of the country were enveloped in a freezing fog for the best part of 3 weeks.

Had there been a load of people partying in the woods that night the local hospital would have have been chock a block with people suffering from hypothermia after drinking outdoors in that weather. There isn't a chance that any party goers wouldn't have built a huge fire simply to stop themselves freezing.



Excellent thread though.... top marks for presentation and the research.





new topics

top topics



 
180
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join