Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

page: 6
180
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
The British MOD on various occasions when asked about this incident have often stated, "we do not investigate reports of UFOs as we deem them as ......NOT A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.


To the contrary. Until 2009 there was a hotline for reporting these events which were investigated as stated by the previous investigating teams manager. It was part of the MoD.

If I recall I think he appeared on GMTV (saw on a day off work probably) debunking all UFO sightings (pretty much) as fakes and hoaxes. Rendlesham was never mentioned in the short interview.

He was just on because the MoD's UFO files had been officially released for the public to now view in their entirity... If you believe that...

Ill try find a link when I get home from work. Just leaving now =)

Zeke.




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Great thread, S&F, wish I had the patience to read it right now.
There's enough information here to create a documentary.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by gambon
 




Holt 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.




Yeah sry here you go original statements fromthe "witnesses"

where i have taken the quotes from....

www.ianridpath.com...


"Note: Cabansag agrees with Burroughs that they walked eastwards for two miles from their vehicle towards a “beacon” light; however, this estimate may be an exaggeration, as the difficult terrain would have made the distance feel greater than it was. Burroughs finally identified the beacon as a lighthouse."

Link to map showing location as given by witnesses inc halt ,

www.ianridpath.com...



""We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field
and you could see the lights down by a farmers house. We climbed
over the fence and started heading towards the red and blue lights
and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we
could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed
it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a
lighthouse".

Extract: original statement from Airman First Class John Burroughs.

"Only the beacon light was still blinking. We figured the lights
were coming from past the forest, since nothing was visible as we
passed through the woody forest. We could see a glowing near the
beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit-up
farmhouse. After we had passed through the forest, we thought it
had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC [Central Security
Control] as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past our
vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine
that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the
distance. Our route through the forest and field was a direct one,
straight towards the light".

Extract: original statement from Airman Ed Cabansag.

source ...web.archive.org...


above takes a while , please also read Chris armold statements and testimony in the same article


And yeas chandler stayed at te vehicle , not at the scene....

Lt englund who was with holt the whole time has positively refused to back up halts version of events




[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?


I will tell you what happened. In america we had the roswell crash and it was the best thing ever. The people in the UK got jealous and decided to make up an even of their own.
Aliens have no interest in the UK, get over it. No ammount of fake crop circles or made up events will change that.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
my personal ideas on this event focus on the clames that the object projected a "beam" onto a hanger that was aparently being used to store nukes.. this made me think of the possabilaty that it was infact a test of some kind of weapon that could dissable a nuke. and that the cover up is that the experamental weapon had a high possable chance of starting a reaction or detonation..

if the test worked then there wouldnt be a problem, if it didnt then they could blame a detonation on "other sorces"



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openmindlight

The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?


I will tell you what happened. In america we had the roswell crash and it was the best thing ever. The people in the UK got jealous and decided to make up an even of their own.
Aliens have no interest in the UK, get over it. No ammount of fake crop circles or made up events will change that.


Errrmm.....Prove it.


ETA: I've at least tried to prove why something happened, so why can't you at the very least prove why something in fact never happened?

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



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


It's Halt not Holt.. Plus Buran's statement says...

* I monitored their progress ( Penniston Burroughs and Cabanagh) as they entered the wooded area. They appeared to get very close to the lights, and at one point Srggt Pennistone stated it was definitely a mechanical object. "

( i have included the original mistakes in grammar)


Using Ridpath as reliable independent source for information is a waste of time. He is a completely biased individual, who wouldn't know the truth about Rendlesham if it smacked m him round the back of the head with a 12 pound lump hammer.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by gambon
 


It's Halt not Holt.. Plus Buran's statement says...

* I monitored their progress ( Penniston Burroughs and Cabanagh) as they entered the wooded area. They appeared to get very close to the lights, and at one point Srggt Pennistone stated it was definitely a mechanical object. "

( i have included the original mistakes in grammar)


Using Ridpath as reliable independent source for information is a waste of time. He is a completely biased individual, who wouldn't know the truth about Rendlesham if it smacked m him round the back of the head with a 12 pound lump hammer.







Oh im very sry i misspelledhis name once or twice.....hmmm
thats your opinion on ridpath , i for one think he hasdone more reliable research than many concerning rendlesham, only penniston mentioned a solid object , others remarked about lights...

appearing to get close and actually getting close are two different things imo , we also read noone got closer than 50 m to the lights by cabanagh


And those were statements of the wittnesses accounts that just happen to be on ridpaths site with the originals and the annotations...are from the witnesses not ridpath..

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


No you misspelled it twice or o wouldn't have picked you up on it. It does suggest you know virtually nothing about the case, save for the rubbish that Ridpath peddles, if you twice manage to spell the name of a chief witness wrong.

The essence of investigation is to deal with all the evidence, no matter how uncomfortable towards your personal prejudices it might be. Ridpath singularly and consistently fails to do this and is totally selective about what quotes and what evidence he uses. That, to me, that makes the guy as big a fraud as Billy Meier.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by gambon
 


No you misspelled it twice or o wouldn't have picked you up on it. It does suggest you know virtually nothing about the case, save for the rubbish that Ridpath peddles, if you twice manage to spell the name of a chief witness wrong.

The essence of investigation is to deal with all the evidence, no matter how uncomfortable towards your personal prejudices it might be. Ridpath singularly and consistently fails to do this and is totally selective about what quotes and what evidence he uses. That, to me, that makes the guy as big a fraud as Billy Meier.


...if you think that it in any way debases what i ahve to say then i pity you..

I wasnt quoting ridpath i was quoting the witnesses ...do you understand the difference?

Have you ever been to the woods?
I have on multiple occasions since 1988 , thats how uninterested i am,


read all the books published on it etc etc ..and i find ridpaths account to be most exhaustive and consistent tbh...the beauty of ats .....

Please show me examples of ridpath ignoring the evidence and we can go through tem one at a time ...

sry correction it was 86 when i first went to the woods


[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I've been half a dozen times myself. I use to live in Sudbury I have a fair few friends down in that area. We also know that the site most people think was where Halt had his encounter was wrong, until very recently, when Halt returned with a documentary crew.

We also now know the MOD lied about the Radar data. it was said, by the MOD that the taping system on the Radar was turned off over that period and that anyway there was no lock on. We now know that, brief as it may have been, the Radar picked up 2-3 sweeps of an object that then vanished from the screen around the exact time of the sighting. The MOD now say.. oh we lost those tapes.

Most of the stuff that Ridpath loves to quote is post the actual encounter when they ,apparently, went looking for the object or an explanation of it. Ridpath studiously avoids making that clear and therefore is attempting to present his evidence as something it simply isn't. That he chooses to ignore the part of Buran's statement where he, himself, says Pennistone thought he could see a definite shape tells you all you need to know about Ridpath.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


the main area woods have been felled since the incident , pretty much unrecognisable, less than convinced by halts "recollections"tbh than his witness statement nearer the time , find the fence and ploughed field .......

where is the evidence of this radar return?

he doesnt ignore that part of his statement at all, in fact he goes into detail about it , i suggest you ty reading it again from the archive i posted....

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Penniston said he took 36 pictures - the entire roll. What ever happened to those, or do we know?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
RA; let me chime in with the choir of praise!
Thank you for the effort and for keeping ATS afloat despite these dire times
My star-finger is sore now...

I have some things to say about those who refuse to believe this story.

1) To think that everyone mistook the "craft" for a lighthouse, or the beam thereof, is just so incredibly ignorant!
Disinformation to say the least!
If I personally would see (nothing but) a flickering light in the distance, my immediate thought would not be "holy macaroni, lets go alert the entire base and get out there to investigate, omg ohnoes wtf gtfo"!
I'd much more likely ask someone: "what's that light? Aaah, it's the lighthouse! Well, of course..."

2) If this would have been a (rather elaborate) prank conducted by someone, I'd really, really like to know what equipment that prankster had. That's gotta be some pretty wild stuff if you are going to succeed in fooling the USAF for several nights in a row.
Stupid thought.

3) That everything was "made up" by bored security personel does not acoount for the other witnesses that came from outside the AFB.
Besides, if one is to "make up" such a story, why make it so freaking bizarre that it is hard to explain it even? Why not just go for "cigar shaped object" or a classic "disc"? And the voices on the tape doesn't sound like they are joking either.
Wouldn't someone have come out and said "yeah, it's all bogus, all for the lol of it" by now?

Exactly what happened those weird, weird nights might never become fully disclosed. In fact, I hardly think it will. But there sure was something rather peculiar did happen and from the "looks" of it, it was not of our realm of "existance", nor space or time...

No matter how odd this might sound...but to me, the way they describe this object and the way it acted...it is not totally "unreal" to me. I think I understand what they mean...in some strange way...



Anyway, great research, great enthusiasm and great thread!
One gazillion thumbs up!



[edit on 18-8-2010 by Raud]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
1) To think that everyone mistook the "craft" for a lighthouse, or the beam thereof, is just so incredibly ignorant!
Disinformation to say the least!
If I personally would see (nothing but) a flickering light in the distance, my immediate thought would not be "holy macaroni, lets go alert the entire base and get out there to investigate, omg ohnoes wtf gtfo"!
I'd much more likely ask someone: "what's that light? Aaah, it's the lighthouse! Well, of course..."
They didn't take anyone else's word it was a lighthouse, they followed the light for miles and found out that's what it was, here is Burrough's statement in his own handwriting, unless you can prove it's a forgery:

Statement and drawing by Airman First Class John Burroughs


If he SAYS it's a lighthouse, how is he mistaking it for a lighthouse??????????

That's what he says it was!!!!!!!!!

"We followed it for about 2 miles before we could (see) it was comming(sic) from a LIGHT HOUSE"!!!! In his own handwriting!

How do you reconcile that with your claims of ignorance?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



If he SAYS it's a lighthouse, how is he mistaking it for a lighthouse??????????


Maybe you should try and post all of what he says in the witness statement and not a little snippet that looks like he means something else which backs up your biased opinion.


This is everything that he says from the witness statement.


"On the night of 25-26 Dec at around 3:00, while on patrol down at East Gate, myself and my partner saw lights coming from the woods due east of the gate. The lights were red and blue, the red one above the blue one, and they were flashing on and off. Because I've never seen anything like that coming from the woods before we decided to drive down and see what it was. We went down east-gate road and took a right at the stop sign and drove about 10-20 yards to where there is a road that goes into the forest. I could see a white light shining into the trees and I could still see the red and blue one.

We decided we better go call it in so we went back up towards East Gate and called it in. The whole time I could see the lights and the white light was almost at the edge of the road and the blue and red lights were still out in the woods. A security unit was sent down to the gate and when they got there they could see it too. we asked permission to go and see what it was. We took the truck down the road that leads into the forest.

As we went down the east-gate road and the road that leads into the forest, the lights were moving back and they appeared to stop in a bunch of trees. We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that let into where the lights were coming from, and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman screaming. Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises, and there was a lot of movement in the woods.

All three of us hit the ground and what ever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field. We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field.

You could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse. We had just passed a creak and were told to come back when we saw a blue light to our left in the trees. It was only there for a minute and just streaked away. After that we didn't see anything and returned to the truck."
(Source) - Link to my opening posts where this is mentioned and then subsequently backed up with the original source -

Doesn't sound much like a lighthouse now does it?? Especially since they followed the light after it was moving away from them and of course because at first it was actually in the tree's.

Sure they may have been confused with the lighthouse at one point....but the lighthouse isn't blue and red and it doesn't move through the forest, completely lighting it up at one point.

And this is what he says about the lighthouse theory as a whole as well.

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." (Source) - Link to my opening posts where this is mentioned and then subsequently backed up with the original source -

It was NOT a lighthouse.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by black cat
Penniston said he took 36 pictures - the entire roll. What ever happened to those, or do we know?


Well, this seems like a waste of a post (my post right here, not yours
) I guess but I don't want you to think you was ignored or anything so I'll address it anyway.

Ok, So honestly, I have no idea where the pictures would be right now, I'm assuming however, that they have been destroyed because as far as I know after Penniston got the film back all the images were completely darkened and practically un-viewable and they was suspected with being tampered with.

I can't find a link to back this up though sadly but I know I read about it but take what I say with a pinch of salt still as the link is absent.

So basically I'm afraid I have no idea what happened to and where the pictures are as of right now.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Rising Against]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by black cat
Penniston said he took 36 pictures - the entire roll. What ever happened to those, or do we know?


That issssssssssssss a good question!

2 nd line- Does anyone here know?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 




That everything was "made up" by bored security personel does not acoount for the other witnesses


And speaking of other witnesses, something I haven't discussed much in the opening posts, here's a pretty cool site (link below) that discusses some of them and what they apparently saw which you may enjoy reading.


The Search For Witnesses



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
Sure they may have been confused with the lighthouse at one point....but the lighthouse isn't blue and red and it doesn't move through the forest, completely lighting it up at one point.
Well at least you admit they may have been confused by the lighthouse, that's the claim that everyone else except gambon keeps denying and they absolutely were following the light from the lighthouse as that story says.

And as I said in my earlier post, I never claimed the lighthouse explained everything, it doesn't.

But I find it very annoying to see posts saying "they weren't confused by the lighthouse, they couldn't have been confused by the lighthouse" etc etc etc when that's absolutely the source of the light they were following, so yes, it sounds EXACTLY like a lighthouse, because it WAS a lighthouse they were following as that story clearly shows irrespective of any subsequent statements Burroughs might have made, because the original statement at the time of the incident is always the most reliable, any good investigator knows that, right?

After they found the lighthouse was the source and started to come back, they saw another light that wasn't the lighthouse. What Burroughs says about that sounds consistent with the meteor that was observed by many over a wide area, would you agree?

The Rendlesham Forest UFO


at about 2:45am on the morning of the 26th, a meteor described by witnesses as "bright as the moon" flew overhead with an unusually long duration of 3-4 seconds. The experience of the airmen was described in a letter home written by one of them:


"At [about 3am], me and five other guys were walking up a dark path about 2 miles from base... Then we saw a bright light go right over us about 50 feet up and just fly over a field. It was silent."


At the same time on base, a security patrolman was dispatched to check the weapons storage area to see if a "falling star" had hit it. It had not. But it does seem clear that all of the UFO reports from the base are perfectly consistent with known meteor activity on that night. So much for the UFO sightings.

So that's the other thing Burroughs saw that wasn't a lighthouse, right? No mystery there either, is there? A meteor DOES light up the sky and forest exactly like that, there are plenty of examples on youtube of this effect.





new topics

top topics



 
180
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join