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 Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

page: 7
182
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
WOW!!!Great thread buddy!Lotta info there and lotta details! Loved it and thanks for the hard work and all the time you put into it!

Regards




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

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.


Ok well, believe me when I say, and I know I have probably come off as an Anti-Lighthouse theory believer, but I'm very much open to any possibility and any theory so far, the reason I've commented negatively towards that theory itself is because I 99% believe it's nothing but BS in all honesty. (no offence to those who do believe in it but this is just my opinion...)

So yes, I agree that they (penniston, burroughs etc.) could have confused at times the supposed UFO that they were seeing with the lighthouse, I mean yes, of course they could have since the lighthouse looks like a small odd looking light in the distance and especially because by the time they saw it IMO they had already seen odd lights around the forest and inside the forest so they could have let their imaginations run wild and confused themselves into believing the light from the lighthouse was the UFO.

In fact I think this snippet that you shared earlier could back this up (ofc. It’s technically not factual)

 




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.


(I’ve added a little bit more from the statement opposed to the small snippet you added for clarification of what they were doing and where they was.
)

Also if someone believes in the opposite of what I do then that's fair enough as well, I'm happy to try and prove why I'm right and if I do turn out to be wrong then Oh well, At least I would have learn something new which Is why I'm a member of this site in the first place.

But like I said sir, I'm open to any possibility here but I just can't find any real reason to fully believe in the lighthouse theory. That's not to say I'm just going to discard it completely but I'll happily challenge it.


 





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


I hope you don't mind me saying but this sounds slightly hypocritical to me in all honesty. I mean If you find it annoying that people say that they 100% couldn't have seen the lighthouse for example then how can you openly say you 100% believe that they did when you previously said it annoys you.

It works both ways and you surely can't be annoyed by doing practically the exact same thing.

 




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?


No sir, I disagree, and I'm really not just saying that for the sake of disagreeing but because as far as I'm aware they saw this...

And this is what was written directly after what he said about the lighthouse in his witness statement.



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 is his own witness statement which you added a link to previously.
-

It doesn't quite sound like he saw a meteor to me in all honesty especially since he says it was in the tree's, was there for a minute although it could have been a lot shorter time I'm assuming, and because it then streaked away.

although don't get me wrong if the timing of the meteor was exactly the same as this then I could be very wrong but it doesn't seem like a meteor from what Burroughs himself says.

Also I'd like to know what you think about his third page of witness statements which is this page below if that's ok?




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



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
am i wrong or did that thing "drip fire"


because i and 5-6 friends saw the same type of phenomenon.

about 1967-9.

too slow for a single engine and too straight a path for a balloon for too many miles.

rock steady on the speed and course for at least, 5 miles.

dropping flames every so often. like wax on fire.

whatever it was it had flames and it looked like the object was totally engulfed and dripped!

it seemed close because of the flames.

i was the one who noticed it and alerted my friends to it when i saw the first or second drip.

it was a good 5-6 min observation.


a drip happened right in front of us and we ran to see. about 1/4 mile.

found nothing. oh yeah, we were about 15yo or so.

so, i don't believe the lighthouse or pranksters theory.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 



am i wrong or did that thing "drip fire"


As far as I'm aware it wasn't dripping fire or anything like that but it was allegedly almost melting metal and possibly throwing off sparks as well as 'silently exploding' to cause this effect in the first place.


It pulsated, although it were an eye winking at you and around the edges, it appeared to have molten metal dripping off it, just like falling to the ground, but I didn't see any evidence of anything on the ground. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing, none of us could."
(Source)

I know you've probably heard this a million times as well but maybe you saw a chinese lantern as they have a candle in it so maybe it accidentally caught on fire perhaps?

This is what they look like from a distance (and this is what they look like close up) so they could easily be mistaken for a UFO.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 



ok, thanks for that. it sounded just like what we saw.


but this was pre 1970. give or take a couple. no chinese lanterns then.

i watched it along time.

it was far but we could see flames of a sort. very strange.

nothing could keep going for that long in that condition of on fire! lol

sounds crazy, i know, since it was heading for logan in boston.

nothing on the news as i remember.


dead straight and steady, west to east over concord to cambridge, (more or less).

that's what got me going about it. i know i said about 5 miles but it could have been much more of a distance.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by fooks]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 





but this was pre 1970. give or take a couple. no chinese lanterns then.


Chinese lanterns have been around for alot longer than that I can assure you.


Anyway, it's just a thought as they can come in all shapes and sizes and some can as far as I know go for a relatively long time indeed seemingly fitting your description.

It would be my guess anyway but Hey, you saw the object so a guess on my part is all It can be.


Although, don't get me wrong, I'd very much so prefer it to be a real extraterrestrial UFO of course.


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



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 



that's ok, i know. this wasn't floating around tho.

it was going slower than a plane and if it was a plane this thing should have burned up right in front of us. no sound but seemed so close.

i figured that out by how much detail of the flames i could see compared to speed and perceived distance.

no trail of fire like a meteor, nowhere near the speed and drama.

when i first read about rendlesharm, i was relieved that other ufo's drip molten fire.

well that's what i call it, anyway.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against

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.


Ok well, believe me when I say, and I know I have probably come off as an Anti-Lighthouse theory believer, but I'm very much open to any possibility and any theory so far, the reason I've commented negatively towards that theory itself is because I 99% believe it's nothing but BS in all honesty. (no offence to those who do believe in it but this is just my opinion...)

So yes, I agree that they (penniston, burroughs etc.) could have confused at times the supposed UFO that they were seeing with the lighthouse, I mean yes, of course they could have since the lighthouse looks like a small odd looking light in the distance and especially because by the time they saw it IMO they had already seen odd lights around the forest and inside the forest so they could have let their imaginations run wild and confused themselves into believing the light from the lighthouse was the UFO.

In fact I think this snippet that you shared earlier could back this up (ofc. It’s technically not factual)

 




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.


(I’ve added a little bit more from the statement opposed to the small snippet you added for clarification of what they were doing and where they was.
)

Also if someone believes in the opposite of what I do then that's fair enough as well, I'm happy to try and prove why I'm right and if I do turn out to be wrong then Oh well, At least I would have learn something new which Is why I'm a member of this site in the first place.

But like I said sir, I'm open to any possibility here but I just can't find any real reason to fully believe in the lighthouse theory. That's not to say I'm just going to discard it completely but I'll happily challenge it.


 





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


I hope you don't mind me saying but this sounds slightly hypocritical to me in all honesty. I mean If you find it annoying that people say that they 100% couldn't have seen the lighthouse for example then how can you openly say you 100% believe that they did when you previously said it annoys you.

It works both ways and you surely can't be annoyed by doing practically the exact same thing.

 




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?


No sir, I disagree, and I'm really not just saying that for the sake of disagreeing but because as far as I'm aware they saw this...

And this is what was written directly after what he said about the lighthouse in his witness statement.



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 is his own witness statement which you added a link to previously.
-

It doesn't quite sound like he saw a meteor to me in all honesty especially since he says it was in the tree's, was there for a minute although it could have been a lot shorter time I'm assuming, and because it then streaked away.

although don't get me wrong if the timing of the meteor was exactly the same as this then I could be very wrong but it doesn't seem like a meteor from what Burroughs himself says.

Also I'd like to know what you think about his third page of witness statements which is this page below if that's ok?






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

Rising against please compare that picture draWN WAY AFTER THE EVENT , WITH THE ONE DRAWN STRAIGHT AFTER THE EVENT IN THE TESTIMONY...sry caps , rubbish keyboard..by the same person, how come the first image is a square objectwith four legs?




I have also never said i think the lighthouse is the sole explanation ,i have mentioned the red and blue antenna lights at orford ness nuclear research est, and the concept of a prank by the arrs,( VERY possible on a boring christmas day stuck on a base , when the sister base is just down the road , knowing the radar to be switched off and the normal comms are broadcasting rock n roll ), in the other threads on this subject.............hint have a look at the shape of the practice rescue vehicle........slung under a green giant, ( mention of wind n static in airin original statement)

on a side line the original testimony/eye witness accounts does make mention of fog and mist thay night as well , contrary to what is commonly believed....


This is the image of the object drawn straight after the event
www.ianridpath.com...

another even later www.ianridpath.com...



[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Rising against please compare that picture draWN WAY AFTER THE EVENT , WITH THE ONE DRAWN STRAIGHT AFTER THE EVENT IN THE TESTIMONY...sry caps , rubbish keyboard..by the same person, how come the first image is a square objectwith four legs?
[edit on 18-8-2010 by Rising Against]


Ok, first off do you really have to unnecessarily quote the entire post?


Secondly, As far as I'm aware, It wasn't "WAY AFTER" like you claim but I could be wrong still and could you at least add a link to what you're talking about here.

Never mind your post has been edited by the time I was able to post but can you cut short your quotes as it's completely unnecessary still.

And once again, if you say they mentioned fog then prove it with a link otherwise I'm not believing you.


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



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
who are you the "threadkeeper" all of a sudden, my thread has not been cut down....

YES i had to quote the whole page ,easiest way to link to your pic , have you actually read the report you linked to all the information i talk of is in there , do I really have to do it for you , If you have read the (many ) other threads on this incident , then maybe you can read it again there , instead of asking for it to be written again here....

The mention of fog is in the witness statements you linked to , which I presumed you had read , you aversion to anything ridpath is stopping you clicking on his site and reading the handwritten copies?


[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 




who are you the "threadkeeper" all of a sudden, my thread has not been cut down....




Far from it, But it just seems, well it is really, completely unnecessary to quote the entire post plus it's against T&C's to do so.


That's why.


No need to be so hostile from a suggestion.

Anyway, can you at least add a snippet from what you're talking about specifically as I can't remember reading about Fog anywhere credible.

And yes, I don't like Ian Ridpath mainly because IMHO He's a complete Moron and does nothing for Ufology. (just an opinion)



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


well if you cannot be bothered to read the handwitten testimonies because of you aversion then why should I have to rewrite them here?Maybe you mean he does nothing to promote ufo's.....

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
duppost

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Why can't you just add the snippet that you’re talking about?? It's baffling.

I've already said I'm unsure what you’re talking about exactly so why can't you simply clarify it for me?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


The Testimony of John Burroughs", by Antonio Huneeus, published in
Fate 46, No 9, September 1993, pp 70-7.

or the link to the archives posted earlier , or ridpaths site up to you , i think it is the officer who drives fromwoodbridge , comments on light mist in his statement if that helps,you track it down...
then halt ( i think)comments on static and wind/mist at the "crash/landing" site..

[edit on 18-8-2010 by gambon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 


There's an excellent chance that if the object(s) were emitting ionizing radiation, that any film would have been completely overexposed, so as to be unusable.

DE



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
OK Light House or No Light House.

I have read through most of this thread which by the way is excellent.

Guess what folks this light house was there in the exact same spot a long time before and it is my guess it is still there now.

Also I watched a documentary on this a while ago, guess what there is a backing on this light house that prevents the light shining inland. It was there before like since the light house was built and it is my guess it is still there now.

Do please get over it, it was not the light house.

Just like with Roswell the base commander got involved and he has said in a documentary that it was some extraordinary craft.

This guy was most likely in charge of nuclear weapons, guess what just like in Roswell. So unless you think that American nuclear weapons are being looked after by complete morons, then guess what it was an extraordinary craft.

Great thanks to Rising Against for bring this up a truly worth while thread.

Oh and by the way I was living in the UK at the time and managed not to hear a dammed thing about this back then. Now I have to say back then like today in fact I never bothered to read news papers but I did used to watch the news. I missed the whole thing. So it could not have been given a large coverage and to add to that know one I knew said anything about it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
Guess what folks this light house was there in the exact same spot a long time before and it is my guess it is still there now.
If that is meant to somehow imply they were familiar with the lighthouse, apparently they weren't:
The Rendlesham Forest UFO

A1C Chris Arnold, who placed the call to the police and waited at the end of the access road, gave this description in a 1997 interview:



There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were... Contrary to what some people assert, at the time almost none of us knew there was a lighthouse at Orford Ness. Remember, the vast majority of folks involved were young people, 19, 20, 25 years old. Consequently it wasn't something most of the troops were cognizant of. That's one reason the lights appeared interesting or out of the ordinary to some people.


Also I watched a documentary on this a while ago, guess what there is a backing on this light house that prevents the light shining inland. It was there before like since the light house was built and it is my guess it is still there now.
I saw an episode of UFO hunters that claimed that but instead of just parroting their claim, I decided to investigate:

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.



And obviously it IS visible from at least some places inland, as seen in this snapshot from a movie made days after the incident:
VINCE THURKETTLE INTERVIEWED



Do please get over it, it was not the light house.

...So unless you think that American nuclear weapons are being looked after by complete morons, then guess what it was an extraordinary craft.
You're the one calling them morons, I call them human beings capable of not recognizing the flashing light was a lighthouse right away. They saw some other lights too but there's little doubt the light they saw flashing every 5 seconds was the lighthouse which flashes every 5 seconds. But because of people like you who might think less of them for making a simple mistake, I suspect they embellished their story over the years, partly so they won't look like "morons" as you put it, and partly for other reasons.

The people who some might be tempted to think of morons are those who read the first hand witness account of Burroughs saying he followed a light that was flashing every 5 seconds, and he ended up at a lighthouse that was flashing every 5 seconds, and then say there was no lighthouse involved in the incident, but I really don't think of them as morons, just human beings capable of making a mistake just like Burroughs, Halt and the gang.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

I must complement you on your debating skills.

However you did miss a bit out.

What ever the light house did or did not do it has always done. The night before and my guess is the night before that as well. In fact since it became operational. So the point here being they only had a problem with lights in the forest for a few nights.

I was not calling them morons I do not believe that is possible in any way. What I am saying is that they are being successfully made out to be morons by the authorities that are hiding what really did happen over those three nights.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You can try to explain away the lights in the sky with the lighthouse theories but the lighthouse doesn't even come close to explaining what Penniston wrote in his notebook or says he saw, or the reports of the object "melting" in mid-air and exploding.

The lighthouse argument also has one other serious flaw - it cannot account for the impressions left in the ground on numerous occasions.



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join