The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 177 times

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:37 AM by Rising Against

reply to post by gambon

Nohe wasnt , burroughs, who was with him , swears he did not even See an object, when only a fewpaces behind, Also the notebook descriptions were not written during the event like he claimed they were....

Isn't that what Ian Ridpath claims?? (I could be wrong on that ofc.)

If so then can you show some more links from sources from him and from sources other than him at the very least which backs this up fully because I'm not going to believe him and him alone to be perfectly honest.

He's refuses to believe in this case no matter what it seems and he’ll make up anything that makes these people seem stupid and or ignorant.

Ian Ridpath = Disinformation = Not to be trusted. IMHO.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Rising Against]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:41 AM by Rising Against

reply to post by XPLodER

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here in all honesty.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:46 AM by Rising Against

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Rising Against

since when is the military a high source of credibility. where have you been the last thousand years. the have whole divisions set up for deception, psychological warfare and propaganda. the truth is a journey not a bus stop.

So, you don't agree that military personnel who spotted a UFO while on shift is a more credible witness than perhaps a random stranger?

I certainly think they are.

In fact I don't see how they can't be.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 01:56 AM by Rising Against

reply to post by sonicology

What may I ask is your take on this, if indeed you have one?

To be honest, I don't know much about the Cash-Landrum Incident at all so telling you what I think of it wouldn't really make sense but I'd be really interested in hearing your opinion still!

Btw, I'm just reading up a bit more about it and it does sound like a fascinating case to say the least.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:52 AM by DamageMoose

i love this case

i think it was totally real

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:52 AM by DamageMoose

i love this case

i think it was totally real

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 03:42 AM by Molan27

I would LOVE to see the Pictures released by the British Ministry of Defense. I know they have been releasing lots of documents but Pictures especially if there are clear it could change things a great deal in ufology. I bet it would Never Happen...

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 04:55 AM by Rising Against

reply to post by Molan27

I doubt we'll ever see the pictures because the ones took were apparently tampered with to make them cloudy, darker and unidentifiable.

Although it's not confirmed.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 05:55 AM by johnny c

reply to post by Rising Against

Great thread my friend

star and flag for you sir!!!

Always when i ask people from the area what do they think of the case nobody knows about it,only people in the ufo feild. I find it truely amazing that every person in London and essex dont know about it. I havent being able to figure out what it was.
Id like to think it was a genuine alien/ufo case but just that story of the soldiers being told to keep there eyes open for such a thing before the event has me wonder about phy ops,but on the other hand it might of happened at other bases and before and they wanted everyone on watch.
What do you think guys??
Great thread,I belive certin important threads should be brought up a few times because sometimes if its not on front of you it just doesnt get any tought.Especially when they have this quaility

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:27 AM by gambon

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by gambon

Nohe wasnt , burroughs, who was with him , swears he did not even See an object, when only a fewpaces behind, Also the notebook descriptions were not written during the event like he claimed they were....

Isn't that what Ian Ridpath claims?? (I could be wrong on that ofc.)

If so then can you show some more links from sources from him and from sources other than him at the very least which backs this up fully because I'm not going to believe him and him alone to be perfectly honest.

He's refuses to believe in this case no matter what it seems and he’ll make up anything that makes these people seem stupid and or ignorant.

Ian Ridpath = Disinformation = Not to be trusted. IMHO.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Rising Against]

Errr how about burroughs own testimony? and that of the other guard at the time/?who also incidently refuses to back up the "base commanders" claims....,,,LINK to testimony in my post

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:30 AM by gambon

Originally posted by fleabit
I always thought that the lighthouse excuse was terribly feeble. As if those folks stationed there hadn't seen that lighthouse countless times. And were suddenly flummoxed by it, and assumed it was an unknown light. I know when I served, if I had a patrol, I knew the regular lights, sounds, and schedule of wherever I assigned. Even when I was 18, I would not have been so dense as to mistake a lighthouse I had probably seen countless times as a new unknown light.

And people suggested that MANY soldiers.. and many of higher rank.. were ALL fooled by the lighthouse they were ALL familiar with.

I'm thinking not...

the base personnel were NOT familiar with the base or the woods , they were new lads there , even there own written testimony states thyey hd no idea about the lighthouse or th red lights on ariels on the mod atomic test area. or had ever been i the woods before.....at orford ness..

Rising Against , yout little map in the op , also is inacurrate as to the landing site,it was nearer the edge of the woodsv according to eyewittness testimony

including holts.....

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

I cannot see ANY newinfomation being presented here , just a cut and pick of (innacurate ) info that supports your agenda...In fact I cannot see the point of this new thrad on the subject at all apart from maybe to boost your profile on ats ....where is any new infomation in this thread .....????

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:37 AM by Rising Against

the base personnel were NOT familiar with the base or the woods , they were new lads there , even there own written testimony states thyey hd no idea about the lighthouse or th red lights on ariels on the mod atomic test area. or had ever been i the woods before.....at orford ness..

This is something I'm admittedly not 100% sure of but yes, the likes of Burroughs and Bustinza may have been new but what about Halt or J . d. Chandler for example?? They were surely at the base a lot longer and were more familiar with the surroundings areas....

Halt especially since he was right in the thick of the incident as it was happening and he’s adamant that this was not a lighthouse he was seeing.

Rising Against , yout little map in the op , also is inacurrate as to the landing site,it was nearer the edge of the woodsv according to eyewittness testimony including holts.....

I'd appreciate it if you could add a link or show me exactly which map is wrong here because as far as I'm aware everything that was posted is truth and/or correct. If you think otherwise however then I’d really appreciate you correcting me here as posting something that’s inaccurate is genuinely the last thing I want to do.

I cannot see ANY newinfomation being presented here , just a cut and pick of (innacurate ) info that supports your agenda...In fact I cannot see the point of this new thrad on the subject at all apart from maybe to boost your profile on ats ....where is any new infomation in this thread .....????

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

In the opening paragraphs, I explained why I wanted to and then did make this thread.

Here it is in case you missed it....

First off yes, I'm very much aware that ATS already has a very well made topic on the Rendlesham forest incident, by Super Moderator Gazrok in fact as shown in this link here, and I know that many threads on this topic are closed and then directed to that thread (linked above) as I’ve seen it happen myself, but I really must make it aware to the moderators and members alike that even prior to starting any research for this thread that I asked for permission on whether I would be allowed to make it as I’m not got much new information to add, instead a thread based on my own opinions and feelings of the event.

The answer I got was Yes, which is why I began my research, gathered all the information I could/felt was necessary and subsequently posted here.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I know ATS doesn't work under just one moderator’s opinion but I'm hoping that after receiving the ‘green light’ so to speak to start this thread that it will still be allowed to stay up and avoid being closed and then directed to the thread above.

Reason for that being, and I'm not trying to take anything away from the previous thread because It was a great read and it explained the story well, but I just felt like I needed to at least try and add my own spin on to (what is IMHO) a dying as well as fascinating topic and also because I felt like I could very much add something to the Rendlesham forest debate, something I didn't want to see buried deep in an already existing thread.

(Opening Post)

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Rising Against]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:43 AM by gambon

Originally posted by Rising Against

the base personnel were NOT familiar with the base or the woods , they were new lads there , even there own written testimony states thyey hd no idea about the lighthouse or th red lights on ariels on the mod atomic test area. or had ever been i the woods before.....at orford ness..

This is something I'm admittedly not 100% sure of but yes, the likes of Burroughs and Bustinza may have been new but what about Halt or J . d. Chandler for example?? They were surely at the base a lot longer and were more familiar with the surroundings areas....

Halt especially since he was right in the thick of the incident as it was happening and he’s adamant that this was not a lighthouse he was seeing.

Halt says he was unfamiliar with the woods , as they were off base ,he also says the land point was near the edge of woods by a farmers field,not where u have the landing in your little map,I dont think chandler was there on the first night tbh......

Read holts testimony if you want to find the real "landing site", by the edge of the ploughed field.....

"Cabansag's further key testimony essentially says this.

[...]

As for Penniston, it's unfortunate we didn't realise before, that
he first claimed, "When we got within a 50 meter distance...This is
the closest point I was near the object at any point".

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:46 AM by InfaRedMan

reply to post by Rising Against

Congratulations on another gold standard thread mate. I've saved this one to file for posterity. I can't really add more than has already been said except to say, keep up the great work. It's threads like this that restore my faith in A&U.

IRM

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:51 AM by Rising Against

reply to post by gambon

Halt says he was unfamiliar with the woods , as they were off base ,he also says the land point was near the edge of woods by a farmers field,not where u have the landing in your little map,I dont think chandler was there on the first night tbh......

As far as I'm aware Chandler was very much a presence on the first night.

He stayed at the vehicles while the others went into investigate if I can remember correctly.

As for Penniston, it's unfortunate we didn't realise before, that he first claimed, "When we got within a 50 meter distance...This is the closest point I was near the object at any point".

I did a search and I couldn't find anything with that piece of writing above for some reason so could you add a link?

And believe me when I say I mean this with the utmost respect but I'd really prefer to see some links to back up what you're saying instead of your own writing now.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 08:06 AM by Doc Holiday

reply to post by Rising Against

Sorry I'm late replying again...this "J O B" thing sucks..

I'm also not sure about how farming shifts work in the area in question...around here, many many farmers harvest at night...using GPS and large combines and such....
I just get the immpression that 2-3 or 4 military personell. chasing lights hopped up on adrenaline...could easily stalk a tractor....then find it...oh its still warm...and has strange writing on it...."farmer had kids" kids make pictograph looking thing on his hay rake....that is no longer hooked to the tractor..
the lights "from the combines" could be reflecting off the house or cars/trucks and or near the edge of the field they stopped at....arriving at the same time the harvest was over, even in the field there is harvest lines in the crops..

So in short, I'm a believer, and would love this to be something, but I just can't get past my 1st immpression of the guy"Penison".....I don't get the good honest feeling from how he presents it...

I would love for this to be something...honestly...

I just don't get a "real deal feeling" from the guy telling this...its just my 1st immpression of the guys "ticks" and such I just don't trust his story 100% and the wittnesses....were under him in comand and "I presume" and were technically under orders to pursue and follow him and his orders during this entire ordeal..

Plus I know how boring a highly gaurded secure base can get....young men, chomping at the bit for some form of excitement or action....

ETA name for clarity...and I spelz bad

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Doc Holiday]

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 08:18 AM by pavil

I've always thought that this was one of the best eyewitness cases in recent history. Either you have to believe that U.S. trained Army security troops did see something very bizarre or that those same troops, who guard a facility where nuclear arms might be, are so stupid/crazy that they thought a lighthouse light was a moving UFO that caused depressions in the ground and radioactivity.

Either way the implications of either are pretty unsettling.

I am of the opinion that these troops saw something that they could not explain in any normal rational explanation. I don't think it was mass hysteria of seeing Lighthouse lights. A prank seems out of the realm of possibility given the eyewitness accounts of the events.

Something was there in the forest those nights, what that was, I am not sure. There also seems to be evidence that has never been released to the public as well.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 08:25 AM by Tribble

Superb presentation, worth 10 stars and 100 flags! I understand "bullets are cheap" but there had to have been a min of 30 men on the ground and in the choppers. Has any of them came forward since the incident?

I read here that they blurred the photos, but are their any of those available?

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 08:30 AM by FireMoon

reply to post by Doc Holiday

Harvest what in December, in freezing ground ? I strongly suspect Pennistone and his comrade were *debriefed*, in such a way as to mess around with their memories of what actually happened in order to discredit them. That would have been it but for something returning the next night and making it a whole different ball game vis a vie covering it up.

reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 08:36 AM by Doc Holiday

reply to post by FireMoon

Yes in winter...around here that is when they use the fertilizer...
and harvest winter crops.

large round pressurized tank of Anhydrous Ammonia, and/or harvest winter wheat, no soil busting...

Like I said...I'm not stuck on this thory...but it makes sense to me....I'm open to all theories...but in the end I tend to think we will never know the real deal story, whether it was debriefing, or gag ordered, or changed all together...I still love the case...
Don't get the immpression I'm trying to debunk it...I love it, just not penistons....presentaion...to uhhh...scripted..IMHO