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.

 

Rendlesham Incident: A Test of Virtual Reality Projectors (Jacques Vallee)

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


That there can be a non-physical side to some encounters is hard to dismiss. There definitely seems to be a physical side to the phenomena too - otherwise where do the burns mentioned above come from. There are loads of other examples of a physical side as I'm sure you are aware.

I also think that the extraterrestrial and inter-dimensional hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Inter-dimensional technology as the means of inter-stellar travel is a plausible idea. Highly speculative but in terms of physics, not impossible at all.

What do you mean by psychotronic weapons?




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 

I hope you turn out to be wrong about the thread sitting here. The staging of UFO events deserves more attention.

I'll try to think of something to trigger more interest in the idea, although I thought a case as famous and well studied as Rendlesham Forest might generate a bit of interest. For some reason members find the millionth 'disclosure to happen this week...' threads more interesting. Perhaps I introduced this topic in the wrong way?

Kandinsky has read the OP and others have promised to so we may see some comments yet.

I don't doubt that a UFO event can be staged as I know someone who was the subject of an investigation after doing so. I also don't doubt that the intelligence services have been involved in the UFO scene.

However, I still have doubts about Vallee's 'virtual reality projectors'. I know there is hologram technology but is it that convincing? Is the technology that good?
edit on 6/1/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 

See above for my doubts about projectors.

I was aware of the fact that Vallee's theory has been largely ignored. However, I thought that perhaps the Rendlesham incident and Vallee might have been good vehicles to launch a debate on possible staging of UFO events etc. I think I may have miscalculated how bored of this case many members are.

I notice though, that you didn't give your view. Are you dismissing Vallee because you think there is a more straightforward explanation? Or do you think it was E.T.? Or something else? Or Undecided?

edit on 6/1/11 by Pimander because: added first line

edit on 6/1/11 by Pimander because: to add link



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I notice though, that you didn't give your view. Are you dismissing Vallee because you think there is a more straightforward explanation? Or do you think it was E.T.? Or something else? Or Undecided?


I rarely state my view...

I usually simply provide references to relevant discussions and/or point out interesting information - usually without expressing any conclusion. This way, I've (generally) managed to avoid getting stuck in the polarised debates and pointless arguments that are all too common in this field. By maintaining good relations with many skeptics and ETHers, I've gradually been able to seek information and views from a growing circle of researchers.

I've collated quite a bit of material on Rendlesham, but have not yet subjected all that material to a sustained attack. I've got another few UFO related projects to finish off first, but some serious work on Rendlesham is now getting close to the top of my list of ufological priorities.

All the best,

Isaac

edit on 6-1-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


It always amuses me when, desperate for an earthly, conventional explanation for phenomena that appear to defy scientific explanation, skeptics of UFOs will go to the desperate extreme of invoking far-fetched conjectures such as that the (mainly US?) military go around the world, projecting holograms of UFOs to deceive the plebs. Of course, these mythical groups only ever do this in UFO cases where no other scientific explanation is possible for them
. But, then, heh! Never mind the silliness of it - at least it is a conventional explanation. That's all that counts to skeptics, isn't it?
And these people are quite willing to rely on the opinions of Jaques Valles when they have to even though he was a UFO expert that academic skeptics would not dream to quote as support for their debunkings of UFOs in academic journals and magazines. The truth is that Valles never accepted that UFOs were solid vehicles piloted by aliens and so he had to invent this notion of UFOs being virtual reality projections by the military as a way of avoiding having to accept that the evidence contradicted his stubbornly held belief about UFOs not being interstellar craft.

I really do think it is about time some people here tried thinking scientifically, instead on slavishly relying on the authority of one particular UFO expert, whose opinions about the nature of UFOs just as reputable investigators did not share.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
So what do you all think? Can we take seriously the idea that 'virtual reality projectors' are a convincing explanation for cases like the Rendlesham Forest incident? Were the witnesses the subjects of a mind control experiment using holograms?


I do not understand why Vallee thinks that 'virtual reality projectors' are a convincing explanation for the Rendlesham Forest incident, and it really amaze me that he even take that explanation serious.

Even in Feb 12 2008, he still sticks to that view.



Here is a short but interesting video in my opinion.

Listen to what Nick Pope said at 03:57 regarding his view on the object in Rendlesham forest.


"I have no explanation for the Rendlesham forest incident, it suggest that this object, whatever it was, was unusual in nature.
Something was physically present in that clearing"


www.disclose.tv...


Originally posted by Pimander
Or do some of you think it more realistic that an E.T. craft really did land in Rendlesham Forest?


I really think that what did land in Rendlesham Forest back then was not from this Earth, and therefore I think it was indeed an E.T. craft.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thank you, corsair00, that was much of where I was going, and you did it so well.

So, ufos, CIA, the military-industrial complex, psy-ops and the occult combined. And documented to a degree that seems to warrant further investigation.

For those who would nay-say the validity of the occult or black magic(k) on the field of ufology, or shadow government, I would submit that first & foremost Black magic(k) doesn't necessarily mean supernatural manipulation.

The thing it seems to excel at most is in mind manipulation--whether in asserting your psychological dominance over another by any expedient means or by how much of the practice and experience takes place in the practitioners mind, i.e. astral travel, OBEs, personal belief in occult empowerment and thusly strengthening one's will etc.

L. Ron Hubbard took what he learned from the occult and totally bent people to his will. So that suggests to me that it doesn't really matter if it's just the dark psychological manipulation of human beings using natural laws, or if there is something supernatural about it. Men drawn to power, and many powerful men at that, even documented occult players in our own government ARE linked to all these things.

The occult & the military psy-ops mindset are certainly kinfolk. Col. John B. Alexander & Major Michael Aquino are certainly connected to Psy-ops…and they are just the tip of the iceberg.


The paper was titled,"From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory," and it presented a Nietzschean scheme for waging perpetual psychological warfare against friend and enemy populations alike, and even against the American people.

The "MindWar" paper was provoked by an article by Lt. Colonel John Alexander, which appeared in the December 1980 edition of Military Review, advocating the introduction of ESP,(extra-sensory perception),tele-pathetic behavior modification, para-pschology, pschokenesis(mind over matter), remote viewing, out of body experiences, and other New Age occult practices into U.S. Military intelligence…


...The "MindWar" paper was disturbing, for reasons beyond its fascist and occultist content. Colonel Vallely's co-author was a PSYOP Research and Analysis Team Leader named Major Michael Aquino. Five years before the circulation of the MindWar paper, Special Forces Reserve officer Aquino founded the Temple of Set…
www.theuniversalseduction.com...


And another article worth a look see at least:


Ritual Magic, Mind Control and the UFO Phenomenon

But not only has Sirius cropped up time and again in Occult and UFO lore, but the ubiquitous Dog Star has also been mentioned in relation to certain mind control experiments which fall under the nefarious umbrella of the CIA’s MKULTRA project.

Purportedly started in 1953 — under a program that was exempt from congressional oversight — MK-ULTRA agents and “spychiatrists” tested radiation, electric shock, microwaves, and electrode implants on unwitting subjects…

..The CIA also tested a wide range of drugs in the prospects of discovering the perfect chemical compound to control minds. '___' was one such drug that deeply interested CIA spychiatrists, so much so that in ‘53 the Agency attempted to purchase the entire world supply of acid from Sandoz Laboratories in Switzerland. In fact, for many years the CIA was the principal source for '___', both legal and otherwise.)

...started kicking around in the early 90’s: that Alien Abductions were a cover for MK-ULTRA mind control shenanigans perpetrated by Intelligence Agency spooks.

…one alleged mind control victim related an incident along these lines, purportedly occurring in the late 70’s. In memories retrieved by way of hypnotic regression, it was revealed that the victim had been the recipient of a mock alien abduction, the intention of which was to create a screen memory that would conceal the actual mind control programs enacted on the victim.

...None of this, of course, dismisses outright the ETH; nor does it mean that ET’s have never visited us. Nevertheless, it's implications are staggering when one considers the impact and subsequent commercialization of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon, and how it has challenged and reshaped the belief systems and psyches of millions upon millions of the planet's inhabitants, in essence creating a new paradigm that prior to thirty years ago was virtually non-existent.

www.conspiracyarchive.com...


So with all the research and documentation already presented in this thread--and continuing to accumulate--have we historically, and are we now, being manipulated via sophisticated psy-ops to a specific and nefarious purpose?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

...Most skeptics dismiss Vallee's thoery on the basis of a lack of evidence to support it and on the basis that there are more straightforward explanations, most ETHers dismiss Vallee's explanation of the Rendlesham Forest incident since it does not explain many of the pieces of evidence they rely upon.


Great minds are starting to show up and you sir are on my personal A-list of researchers I've found through ATS.

In reference to the evidence from Rendlesham: From the standpoint of Vallee's assertion as relates to this OP, I'm sure you would agree that good strategists have the facility for achieving more than one goal with their plans.

So if your goal was to test, among other things, the effects and believability factor of this experience on the soldiers AND to incrementally inculcate public perception regarding the ufo phenomena, then I don't think that any of the Rendlesham evidence precludes being staged/planted.

Putting Rendlesham aside for the moment, what do you think about the research and evidence that suggests the CIA has, in the past, staged some falsified events?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

I think you will find that much of what has been written in this thread by myself and others is open minded. The possibility that there are staged events AND genuine E.T. AND black ops are all being considered here. I for one don't doubt that many encounters/sightings are black ops but some are possibly something else.

The possibility that Vallee is wrong is also being considered. Vallee actually believed that staged UFO's and disinformation meant that the real phenomena were largely ignored.

You are welcome to actually discuss the evidence presented. However, from reading your post, I see no evidence that you have followed the thread and read it properly. The OP was just designed to get a discussion going. You look likely to derail the thread wittingly or not!!!

I would suggest here too, that members don't allow you to drag this thread into a pointless row about sceptic versus E.T. believer as it is clearly not what it is about. Please try to ignore this line, there are plenty of other places on ATS to discuss that.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I rarely state my view...

Sidestepped again!

edit on 6/1/11 by Pimander because: add emoticon



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by corsair00
 

I knew very well about the O.T.O. connection with Vallee. I'm surprised how quickly you guys pointed that out. The plot thickens...


Originally posted by corsair00
There have been other obscure comments made by others that allude to Rendlesham being a PsyOp. Most notably from Barry King. Whether or not he is credible I am not sure.

What I do find incredible is this. King says that it was possible for them to make a subject believe they were having an encounter. However, then he talks about the ones he remembers being real. In that video you posted he talks about real created greys and below he discusses seeing a giant reptilian with some NSA operatives. How does he know what he thinks he saw was real if he really knows they can make you think you have have an encounter?

Could King be a classic example of a whistle-blower who believes what he saw was real but has been duped?
edit on 6/1/11 by Pimander because: add top lines



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I really think that what did land in Rendlesham Forest back then was not from this Earth, and therefore I think it was indeed an E.T. craft.

Don't get me wrong now, I'm not saying you are right or wrong.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that a craft definitely landed in Rendlesham Forest. How can you know whether it is from Earth (man made), from another planet/space or another dimension?

Now if you look here I have my own doubts about projectors. There could possibly have been something man-made staged though. How can you know it wasn't staged?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


At the risk of sharing too large of a quote or wall of text - here is most of Chapter 6: "Special Effects" from "Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception" - that deals with Rendlesham.

...


A remarkable event took place in late December of 1980. A strange
object was seen on the ground by a security police group at a joint
Royal Air Force/U.S. Air Force base in England called Woodbridge.
The map shows the facility as an elongated zone with a twin
base a few miles away at Bentwaters. Between the two bases is a wooded
area called Rendlesham Forest.

As a guard at Woodbridge Base, an American named Larry Warren
said that he saw a UFO land in the forest. Dozens of other military men
and a few civilians saw it, too. The commanding officer allegedly came
out and interacted with the three occupants of the craft. There is no
doubt, based on the documents in the affair, and on the very extensive
investigation conducted by Jenny Randies, Dot Street, and Brenda
Butler—and published in their book Sky Crash (London: Neville Spearman,
1984)—that an extraordinary event did take place that night. But
far from being an actual UFO, it may simply have marked another step
in the deception.

THE RENDLESHAM CRASH

It should first be realized that the area in question has a long tradition
of being associated with advanced military research. It is in that region
that radar was first deployed in the early years of World War II. The
facilities that can be seen above ground are said to be dwarfed by the
network of shelters and storage areas buried below the East Anglia
countryside.

The two bases belong to the British but are leased to the United
States under the terms of a NATO agreement. The American 81st
Tactical Fighter Wing flies four squadrons of A-10 antitank aircraft
from Bentwaters and another two from Woodbridge. The latter base,
according to Jenny Randies and her co-authors, also hosts the elite 78th
Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron, specialized in the type of
emergency intervention that would be required should a team of U.S.
astronauts have to make an emergency landing anywhere on the planet.
At the time of the events, Wing Commander Gordon Williams was
the Executive Officer for both bases, and Lieutenant Colonel Charles
Halt was Deputy Base Commander.

Brenda Butler, an independent investigator of strange phenomena
who lives in Suffolk, first heard of the Bentwaters case through an
American friend who was in the Air Force. She managed to find other
witnesses who agreed to talk to her. She quickly recognized that the
exact date of the incident was a matter of some confusion. There were
conflicting rumors of helicopters and other aircraft crashing in the
forest, and of weapons going wrong. Another airman who spoke to
Brenda told her the base had suddenly become active late on December
27; trucks had driven off in convoy toward the forest. At the time, he
was actually told by his superiors that a UFO had just crashed half a
mile from the end of the runway.

This fact should already alert us. In actual UFO cases the attitude
of the military has always been one of denial. Only as a last resort, and
after extensive investigation, does the Air Force admit that a phenomenon
might be "unidentified." Here, on the contrary, the notion of a
crashed UFO was actually planted in the minds of witnesses from the
beginning.

A forestry worker next came forward with his story. He had found
an area where the tops of the branches were broken and the trees
scorched. He reported it but there was no follow-up.

A fourth man, a civilian electrician, was brought on the base to repair
guiding lights on tall poles at the end of the main runway. He thought
they must have been destroyed by an aircraft making an emergency
landing. What seemed especially strange to him was the fact that
during the whole time of the repairs he was surrounded by extraordinary
security.

Taken together, these reports seemed to substantiate the actual
reality of an encounter between U.S. Air Force officers and a landed
UFO in an English forest.

THE I N V E S T I G A T I ON

The story of the Rendlesham case, which I summarize here from the
book by Butler, Street, and Randies, developed between 1981 and 1984
as the three English investigators explored new leads and obtained data
from new witnesses. An important informant was a civilian radar operator
at Watton in Norfolk, who said that on December 27, 1980, an
unusual object was tracked heading in from the coast, and it was lost
near Rendlesham Forest. Of special interest was the fact that two
intelligence officers from the U.S. Air Force—presumably the now
infamous OSI that employed Richard Doty in New Mexico—visited
this English radar station within two days of the tracking and requested
the recordings for study.

They told the amazed radarmen that they had tracked a metallic
UFO. Again, these normally tight-lipped officers were uncharacteristically
talkative, adding that the mysterious object had been confronted
by military men whose jeep had stalled as they got close to it. They even
volunteered that the object was observed on the ground while it was
being repaired by the alien crew, and that this was seen by high-ranking
officers from the nearby base, with the commanding officer himself
conversing with the occupants.

Although the English investigators kept being rebuffed by the British
Ministry of Defense—the woman in charge of answering queries about
UFOs even denied to their face that any close encounter had ever been
reported to their office!—a breakthrough occurred when a document
that was held back because it was covered by the Official Secrets Act
in Britain was released by the U.S. Air Force on the other side of the
Atlantic under the Freedom of Information Act.

That key document was a memo from Lieutenant Colonel Charles
Halt. While it did not go into all the details that informants had already
leaked to the investigators, it did authenticate the major facts: yes,
unusual lights had approached the base about 3:00 A.M. on December
27, 1980. Yes, security personnel responded and found a strange glowing
object in the forest. It was metallic, triangular, with a pulsing red
light on top and blue lights at the bottom. Yes, depressions and radioactivity
were found the next day. Yes, there was a red light that seemed
to throw off light particles, broke into five white objects, and disappeared.

Armed with this undeniable official memo, the women returned to
the base, interviewed Halt and other officers and filled in many of the
gaps in the record.

One of the security people who had watched the object, the young
man designated as Art Wallace in Sky Crash, who was in fact Larry
Warren, was tracked down in the United States where the Air Force
had reassigned him after the incident. He added many details. Others,
including Halt's teenage son, confirmed the exact location and the
events on the base that surrounded the landing.

These disclosures failed to resolve some of the contradictions in the
story. Did the landing occur on the twenty-seventh, as initially reported,
or on the thirtieth, as indicated by some witnesses? Was there another
event on the twenty-sixth, as some later disclosures seemed to show?
Were there sightings on successive nights? And who was in charge at
the time, Lieutenant Colonel Halt or Wing Commander Gordon Williams?
Finally, were actual aliens seen or only an object with some
lights? Even after extensive investigation it was not possible to answer
these questions with certainty. But it was clear that a systematic attempt
at cover-up had been implemented. Perhaps it is at this level that
the Bentwaters case is most interesting—for what it teaches us about
the nature and the structure of such observations around military bases.

DELUSION OR DECEPTION?

The English investigators have presented convincing evidence that the
various explanations offered to the public for the Bentwaters case—
allegedly caused by the beam of a distant lighthouse and some bright
stars—were utter rubbish. It is tempting to conclude that the military
were indeed confronted with an alien craft and its occupants. This may
well be the solution. But there are intriguing alternatives.

To me the most plausible theory is that the U.S. military has developed
a device or a collection of devices that look like flying saucers, that
they are primarily intended for psychological warfare, and that they are
being actively tested on military personnel. Thus, the persons who
control the experiment can always contain the repercussions if the story
leaks out. In such cases OSI may be used both to calibrate the observers—
hence the visit to the radar men and the collecting of all photographs—
and to cover up the exercise itself.

If the reports leak out, the cover story may be, very simply, that the
object was in fact a UFO. This is the ultimate explanation, the end of
the road: "What do you want us to do? This was an object we could
not identify. You know as much about it as we do . . . ." In other words,
OSI could be actually covering up the fact that such sightings are not
cases of actual UFOs! No wonder amateur ufologists are confused, as
they are confused by the observation of strange disk-shaped lights over
Area 51.

The mechanism of the cover-up seems to be consistent—moving
extremely rapidly, the intelligence agencies sweep all the evidence and,
if necessary, secure the key witnesses. If word of the event leaks out,
the normal military chain of command operates to keep any controver-
sial document out of public hands. If that fails, then the intelligence
agencies go into a confusion mode characterized by three simultaneous
interventions:

1. They trot out their team of debunkers (astronomers, skeptics or
"rationalists") who seize upon any available explanation; the more absurd
the better.

2. They "oversell" the UFO explanation, always emphasizing the
extraterrestrial interpretation. For example, if an object has been seen
on the ground, they will make sure the media give prominence to the
wild-eyed witness or the local contactee cult member who will claim
that he has received a message for mankind, so that the entire affair is
quickly blown out of proportion.

3. They start leaking some correct information to the investigators
but mix it with confusing elements regarding the date, the time, and
the identity of the witnesses.

All these elements are demonstrably present in the Bentwaters case,
and they can be found in other military cases as well.
Is there evidence that Bentwaters was in fact an instance of deception
rather than delusion? I believe the testimony of Larry Warren is
very interesting in that regard.

On a syndicated television program called Dimensions in Parapsychology,
Warren recalled his experience in detail. It had been eight
years since he had served at Bentwaters. He was now engaged in media
work, he said. A lean young fellow with long hair falling over his shirt
collar, he seemed very relaxed, his hands hooked in his belt as he spoke.

He was in the security police at Bentwaters, he said. On the evening
in question he was dispatched to the motor pool to get lighting equipment.
He did not know why. He obtained some "light-alls," loaded
them and drove to a designated point near the forest where the vehicles
were parked. There he was ordered to leave his weapons and he walked
half a mile into the forest with other personnel. They halted behind a
small stone wall. From that position he could see a lot of ground fog
or mist which was illuminated.

There was no UFO in view anywhere, yet an elaborate scene was
being staged. Guards, officers, and other personnel had been assembled,
unarmed in an area where some sort of fog—as in the Pontoise case—
had mysteriously developed. It is difficult not to imagine that they had
been brought there deliberately, not to guard anything, but to witness
a very special phenomenon, and that it was their reactions to the
forthcoming event that were being covertly tested.



Soon there were forty people in Rendlesham Forest. They had motion
picture cameras, video cameras, and still-photography cameras.
Larry Warren wondered why all that technology was being deployed
just to document the luminous fog.

Over the radio he overheard someone ask, "Why are we here?"

Soon afterward a voice said, "Here it comes!"—and a UFO arrived
from the north.

It was only a small red light, a mile or so out toward the North Sea
coast. It moved so fast that Warren had trouble tracking it, and suddenly
it was right there, hovering twenty feet or so above the ground,
glowing red over the fog. Everybody stood up and looked at it.

A silent, controlled explosion took place, and when it was over, the
red light had been replaced by a solid object. In the process the red light
literally blew shards of light in slow motion.

The object was steady, shaped like an arrowhead with a red light on
top and a bank of blue lights at the bottom.

The military units went into action. Two British policemen who had
taken pictures had their cameras confiscated. A disaster preparedness
team announced they were getting strong radiation readings. Base
Commander Colonel Gordon Williams arrived on the scene and approached
three life forms that had spilled out of a glowing light to the
right. Were they part of an alien crew? Or were they part of a staged
experiment?

Far from being surprised by the sudden appearance of an unidentified
object over their base, the U.S. Air Force had clearly anticipated
and prepared this encounter. A large number of military personnel from
various backgrounds had been assembled to witness the event. Their
weapons had been taken away from them. They were carefully placed
at prearranged locations. Illuminated ground fog and various light effects
had taken place prior to the observation of an actual object. Once
the men had seen whatever they were supposed to see, they were pulled
out and debriefed.

This is not what would happen if a real UFO did land. But it is
exactly the sequence of actions one would expect if the reactions of the
men to a prearranged stimulus were being tested.

BEYOND THE HALL OF MIRRORS

Two questions must be explored in the context of the Deception Theory.
They apply equally well to Pontoise, to UMMO, and to Bentwaters.
First, how could a small military intelligence unit simulate such
complex UFO events? And second (and most importantly), why would
they want to do it?

The first question is surprisingly easy to answer. There would not be
a single trick, but a combination of technical devices used in such a
sequence and in such a psychological context as to lead the observers—
and if necessary, the public—to the unavoidable conclusion that a UFO
had indeed been present.

Although such remotely-piloted vehicles would have been difficult to
produce in the early Fifties, and therefore cannot explain the totality
of the UFO phenomenon, they were already well-developed by the time
of the Vietnam War and easily available during the period covered in
the last three chapters. The devices in question can be equipped with
mechanical, optical, and electronic devices that can be used in sequence
or in combination to produce very spectacular UFO sightings.

The simplest such device is a model of a disk, two to four feet in
diameter. We are not talking here about crude garbage-can covers
equipped with hobby rockets, but exquisitely controlled systems carrying
microprocessors and guided by radio. Miniature television cameras
enable these gadgets to survey their surroundings and to transmit pictures.
They can maneuver in and out of trees. The inventor of such a
device, who developed it for a U.S. intelligence agency in the Sixties,
has told me he could make it fly around a meeting room and out of a
window. It produced no more sound than a whir.

Next in the list of mechanical devices are actual flying saucers of the
type developed by Dr. Moller near Sacramento, California. These vehicles
are highly maneuverable and develop sufficient thrust to carry one
pilot with his equipment. They are being manufactured to serve as
reconnaissance platforms in hostile terrain. Their diameter is on the
order of eight feet. Equipped with lights, they could be indistinguishable
from actual saucers.



More ambitious UFO displays have been deployed, complete with
light projectors, lasers, and sound effects, in support of various media
extravaganzas such as the opening of the Los Angeles Olympic Games
or the concerts of the Electric Light Orchestra. In such cases the UFO
can be of arbitrary size and complexity since it does not have to carry
its own means of propulsion. Instead, it is simply suspended from a
flying crane, suitably screened from the observers by artificial fog.

Some of my associates and I have thought of other ways to fly and
control real flying saucers which could be seen from the ground, photographed,
and tracked on radar by perfectly sincere witnesses.

When such mechanical devices are combined with optical and electronic
displays, the results can be even more astonishing. Perfection
could be reached with devices that could never be proven to be fakes
by scientists on the ground. It has long been realized that all it took was
a powerful slide projector to expose unsuspecting crowds to celestial
wonders, provided there was a cloud or fog bank dense enough to serve
as a screen in the vicinity. Fog machines are easy to obtain from any
movie studio equipment supplier. This method has actually been used
in psychological warfare.

As early as World War I the German military actually used artificial
smoke on which to project an image of the Virgin Mary, her arms
outstretched in a gesture of peace. This was projected over the trenches
in an attempt to confuse the French. (See the catalogue of Special
Effects Services of TRI-ESS Sciences, Inc.)

The problem with slide projections is that they are flat. They may
fool a casual witness, but any sophisticated observer will recognize them
for what they are. The next step is a laser show in which what is
projected is not a two-dimensional image, but an actual sculpture in
midair, like the hologram of Princess Leia in Star Wars.

In all these situations it is useful to keep the observers confused by
bright lights—which have the advantage of blinding those who might
be tempted to look in the direction of the projector—as well as sounds,
conflicting statements, and the suggestion that a paranormal phenomenon
is in progress and that ordinary rules of logic are therefore suspended.

Knowing that the technical means for simulating UFO encounters
are available, the remaining question is: why would the U.S. military use
these methods?

Here again we find a variety of rational and logical answers. They
have in common the question of personal belief of the percipient, so
I will preface the explanation by posing a simple situation before the
reader.

Suppose you are a guard assigned to secure part of the perimeter of
a missile base. You know that an enemy might want to violate the
perimeter in order to steal warheads, to procure nuclear material, to
obtain secret firing codes, or simply to test the defenses.

You suddenly see a helicopter flying low over the electrified fence in
your direction. It has no running lights. What do you do? Presumably,
you do your duty. You raise your machine gun and you start shooting.
Now let us suppose you are a devout Catholic. Drifting over the
fence is not a threatening engine of war with its rotor blades, but a
beautiful image of the Blessed Virgin smiling at you and throwing rose
petals to the ground. What are you going to do now? I don't know many
Catholics who would swing that machine gun and pull the trigger.

Let us go one step further. Presume that the object coming over the
fence is neither a recognizable threat, nor an obvious religious entity like
Our Lady, but a flying saucer surrounded with lights. Perhaps some
alien creature can be seen through the glass dome. If you fire, you might
start an interplanetary war. Most guards will hesitate before that situation
and request further orders. The resulting delay, seconds or minutes
of elapsed time, may be all that is necessary for the invaders to secure
the base.

Farfetched? Yes. But antiterrorist exercises in which the attackers
disguised their craft as a flying saucer have actually been run more than
once, and such tests of base security probably explain a fair number of
the UFO sightings around missile silos that are so often advanced as
evidence by the amateur groups and cited by one television documentary
after another as proof that extraterrestrials are surveying our strategic
assets. In most cases the base that is under simulated attack is never
given the actual explanation for what happened, precisely because the
test would be worthless if the target knew about it.

I have received confirmation of the existence of such maneuvers
from men who were trained in the penetration of nuclear plants and
missile bases. But other reasons exist for the use of devices disguised as
flying saucers in psychological warfare. One such reason is, very simply,
the calibration of the judgment of the observers. In such a situation
(where a real enemy might be tempted to use such a disguise), how
would guards react? How would enlisted men, intelligence officers,
pilots, policemen react? Would they still follow orders? What would the
public think? What means could be used to increase, or dispel, the
confusion?

Last, but not least, the military might even use such devices to find
out if its own scientists are capable of differentiating between real and
simulated UFOs. Just in case real UFOs do exist . . .

The above items all relate to tactical reasons for the simulation of
UFOs in an operational context, as may have been the case in Bentwaters.
Beyond all this the upper echelon of the military in various countries
may have a more important strategic objective. That objective
could explain not only such local exercises as Pontoise, UMMO, and
Bentwaters, but also the systematic disinformation games such as Majestic
12, the games of which people like agent Doty and UFO researcher
Bill Moore were the willing conduits, and of which men like
Dr. Bennewitz, John Lear, Bill Cooper, and Bill English may have been
the victims.

Once we have entered this maze, there is no turning back. We can
only go deeper into the darkness, accumulating new data with the
uneasy knowledge that much of what we find is distorted and perhaps
deliberately biased to confuse us into an irreversible belief in extraterrestrials.
The only people who could clear up the confusion are the ufologists
themselves. They are the ones with the data, who could notice and
expose the glaring discrepancies between the real UFO phenomenon
and the manufactured simulations. But the community of UFO research
has some problems of its own.

COVER-UPS AND BLIND ALLEYS

The UFO shelf at your local bookstore today bends under the weight
of books that claim to expose the cover-up of the phenomenon by the
government. And well it should. There is no question that the Air Force
has tried to push the whole business under the rug from the beginning.
It has lied, ridiculed witnesses, and even denied before Congress that
some of the most convincing cases had been reported by its own officers.

This is not just covering up—it is blatant perjury. One government
research group, and possibly several, have been in operation since the
Fifties.

In that context, anyone claiming to uncover the truth and to expose
the cover-up finds a ready audience among UFO believers and the
public at large.

But a very curious thing happens. Those who claim to bring us these
amazing revelations are generally linked to the military or to the intelligence
community themselves. What they are exposing is not the real
secret group, but an outer layer of outright lies and deceptions that were
meant to be exposed in the first place. Not only was John Lear a pilot
for a CIA-controlled airline, and Bill Cooper a Naval Intelligence man,
but Bill English served as an information analyst at a listening post
north of London. Bill Moore has admitted that he was an informant
for the Air Force—and possibly for other agencies as well—and his
main contact, Richard Doty, was trained in disinformation and in
psychological warfare.

By what magic trick did these men manage to convince so many sane
UFO researchers, including some professional scientists, that there was
a hangar full of flying saucers at Area 51 and a cave full of flesh-eating
aliens under New Mexico? One would expect ufologists to be particularly
suspicious of any unverifiable claim coming from such sources.

The answer is sadly simple. Most ufologists are incredibly naive when
it comes to the methods of intelligence. Even the scientists among them
have never taken the trouble to learn the basic rules by which classified
information is controlled, used, and released. And when a real expose
comes to light, they refuse to look at it, unless it happens to match their
preconceptions.

In 1979 I published such a series of exposes in Messengers of Deception
. I pointed out that UFO author Major Keyhoe, who had written
such informative books as The UFO Conspiracy in the Fifties, and
created the NICAP organization to expose the Silent Group and to
force the release of UFO information, was actually under the control
of a board of directors replete with psychological warfare experts linked
to the intelligence community. I asserted that other groups were under
similar surveillance.

American UFO research was not willing to listen to such simple
truth: the book was hastily rejected by the believers.

It took another ten years for the assertions it contained to be vindicated.
As the full text of the 1953 Air Force panel—which gathered
Louis Alvarez and other scientific luminaries—was finally understood,
it became apparent that the real sponsor had been the CIA, and that
one of the secret recommendations targeted the infiltration of the UFO
groups.

The deeper lesson, however, has not yet been learned.

It has become a favorite game among ufologists to sue various government
agencies under the Freedom of Information Act and to ponder
the thousands of pages released through this process.

Many of the documents that have come to light in this way during
the Eighties are papers that I remember having read in the Sixties as
Dr. Hynek's associate. How did they find their way into classified files
retrieved under the FOIA?

The answer, once again, is strikingly simple.

Twenty years ago I used to sit in Dr. Hynek's study in Evanston to
read two-page telex messages sent to the Foreign Technology Division
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. They would originate in such
places as the control tower at Okinawa Air Force Base and would be
directed to FTD and a bewildering series of other addressees that
included CIA, NSA, JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff), the White House,
State Department, and a dozen other places.

At the very end of the dispatch would be the sighting itself: "Mrs.
Brown has reported a strange light."

I would show the piece of paper to Hynek and I would ask him,
"Allen, why on earth do the White House and the NSA need to know
that Mrs. Brown has seen a light?"

He would laugh and explain to me that the Air Force could not leave
it to some low-ranking telex operator to decide who should receive a
particular piece of information. Anything that originated from the
control tower at Okinawa had to go to that list of addressees. The
machine was programmed that way, and it was up to the addressees to
decide if they wanted to use the message, file it, or throw it away.

Thirty years later some UFO group will sue the NSA under FOIA
and, after much argument in court, it will uncover the amazing fact that
Mrs. Brown once saw a light somewhere in Japan. By then, of course,
the report will have acquired very special significance. It will glow in the
aura of privileged information, extirpated from the bowels of our most
secret agency. The sad reality is that the report, classified or not, is a
piece of garbage.

Although I admire the patience of researchers of UFO history who
are assembling the pieces of the official reaction to the phenomenon,
I am constantly amazed at their naivete.

This childish attitude reaches a peak when it comes to the belief in
crashed saucers and little aliens.

Most ufologists have become so frustrated after years of difficult
research, not to mention the ridicule from friends, colleagues, and
relatives, that they have a deeply rooted need for vindication. This need
is so strong as to exceed even their stated respect for the truth and the
basic standards of validation of elementary facts.

Thus the claims for the existence of MJ-12 have been immediately
accepted by many otherwise sane researchers, and several good people
I know have dropped everything to ponder the meaning of the anatomical
details in some alien pictures that were simply constructed by computer
in Hollywood for the Seligman Cover-Up documentary, also
known as the Strawberry Ice-Cream Show.

The latest revelations of Lear, Cooper, or Lear's alleged informant,
Robert Lazar, about flying saucers at Area 51 have become the major
topic of debate at meetings of UFO researchers, while actual UFO
sightings, which happen by the dozen every month, go on without
anyone seriously studying them or even bothering to go look at the
physical traces!

Someone is using the believers' eagerness to know the horrible truth
about UFOs. Someone has manufactured a story of little aliens, just as
someone has invented UMMO and exploited Pontoise. As we will see
in the third section of this book, the process continues to work, because
it pushes some obvious psychological buttons.

Clever intelligence operations are structured with concentric layers,
like an onion. The data we have already reviewed show that the top level
of the onion is designed around the official assertion that there is no
UFO phenomenon at all. This is the level most skeptics and most
scientists have chosen to believe.

In my opinion the evidence is very strong that a genuine UFO
phenomenon exists, but serious, dedicated, and aggressive research is
required to peel away this first layer and to find the real facts.
The second layer is exemplified by MJ-12. It claims that there is a
large conspiracy to hide the information, but that the government—the
wise white father in the White House—knows the truth. In his kindness
he does not tell us, presumably because he wants to protect his
children.

I have shown that this notion was hard to believe. The UFO phenomenon
is a major challenge to the entire edifice of our physics, and
there is nothing the President can do about it. There may be a lot of
buried data in Washington, there may be a large research project
secretly trying to decipher it, but there is no secret truth! Again, data
is not information. (Similarly, we have all the data in the world about
cancer, but we still do not know precisely what mechanism causes it,
or how to prevent it, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on research
over the last half century.)

The third layer of the onion comes to us courtesy of Messrs. Lear
and Cooper. It claims that the aliens are here and they rule the world.
Perhaps the third layer is ludicrous, but it works. The entire thrust
of American UFO research has been destabilized by this drivel which
would certainly not make it as science-fiction.

The inescapable conclusion is that the people who claim so vocally
to expose the cover-up may be the ones who constitute the cover-up
itself. Somebody is going to a lot of trouble to convince us of the reality
of extraterrestrials, to the exclusion of other, possibly more important
hypotheses about UFOs.

To get closer to the actual truth, as I try to do, we must patiently
continue to peel away the deeper layers of the onion. Even if the process
occasionally brings tears to our eyes.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by corsair00
 


Not too long for me, thanks for posting. I have some catching up to do with all the stuff posted. Some deadlines to meet over the next two days, but I'll look forward to getting back to you and pimander on some of the stuff y'all shared.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I really think that what did land in Rendlesham Forest back then was not from this Earth, and therefore I think it was indeed an E.T. craft.

Don't get me wrong now, I'm not saying you are right or wrong.


That’s no problem; I based my opinion about this case after reading pretty much information about it and especially the testimonies of those witnesses who were involved.


Originally posted by Pimander
Lets just say for the sake of argument that a craft definitely landed in Rendlesham Forest. How can you know whether it is from Earth (man made), from another planet/space or another dimension?


This case took some two to three days.

In short,
due the sightings of flying light emitting objects in the sky above the forest and how they were described, the confrontation with a very strange shaped craft [which could be touched] that did land in some clearing in the forest and which was obvious able to maneuver between the trees and back, the left behind physical traces of it, the amazing confrontation with a second strange light emitting object with Non Earthly beings and even possible abductions is enough for me to conclude that it was not of this Earth, whether it originated from another planet/space or another dimension.


Originally posted by Pimander
Now if you look here I have my own doubts about projectors. There could possibly have been something man-made staged though. How can you know it wasn't staged?


This case took some two to three days and there were a lot of witnesses, even some civiliansoutside the base, so when they would have used 'virtual reality projectors' for that or something else, how would they have done that all without being caught in that act regarding transporting, installing and operate that equipment and its necessary power station.

And how were they able to ‘project' those objects of which one was physical even in the midst of the forest and at the same time in the sky?

Do you really think that all those men from the base would not have noticed that all?


edit on 7/1/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Pimander
Now if you look here I have my own doubts about projectors. There could possibly have been something man-made staged though. How can you know it wasn't staged?


This case took some two to three days and there were a lot of witnesses, even some civiliansoutside the base, so when they would have used 'virtual reality projectors' for that or something else, how would they have done that all without being caught in that act regarding transporting, installing and operate that equipment and its necessary power station.

And how were they able to ‘project' those objects of which one was physical even in the midst of the forest and at the same time in the sky?

Do you really think that all those men from the base would not have noticed that all?


I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is, forget the projectors. If humans could stage the object in other ways - perhaps using a black ops technology vehicle - how can you be sure that the rest wasn't staged? It would be easy to fool people off the base with lights in the sky as somebody I know has done this. Apparently there is technology that can create false radar readings too. How many witnesses saw these beings close up? Could the abductions be MILABS? If there was really psy-ops going on there, it would be easy to fool a person under hypnosis or even fool a hypnotist if you are suggesting we rely on that type of testimony...

As there were nuclear weapons stored on the base, security was tight and it had to be possible to move equipment in and out in secret - so all the men on the base would not be aware if unusual equipment was brought in.

I'm not suggesting that no encounters have ever been with otherworldly beings. I am suggesting that there could be another explanation for many encounters - perhaps this one too.


Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Pimander
Lets just say for the sake of argument that a craft definitely landed in Rendlesham Forest. How can you know whether it is from Earth (man made), from another planet/space or another dimension?

(snip)
due the sightings of flying light emitting objects in the sky above the forest and how they were described, the confrontation with a very strange shaped craft [which could be touched] that did land in some clearing in the forest and which was obvious able to maneuver between the trees and back, the left behind physical traces of it, the amazing confrontation with a second strange light emitting object with Non Earthly beings and even possible abductions is enough for me to conclude that it was not of this Earth, whether it originated from another planet/space or another dimension.

If there exists black ops technology capable of staging the object then does your belief in the other-world visitors hypothesis rely mainly on the reports of these beings? If so, that is probably the least reliable part of the evidence - especially if there was a psy-ops research establishment on one of the bases.

Can we really be sure about this case?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is, forget the projectors. If humans could stage the object in other ways - perhaps using a black ops technology vehicle - how can you be sure that the rest wasn't staged? It would be easy to fool people off the base with lights in the sky as somebody I know has done this. Apparently there is technology that can create false radar readings too.

How many witnesses saw these beings close up?


You are right Pimander, I obviously misunderstood you in some way, my fault.
I understand now that you also do not agree with Vallee’s claim that it was done with the use of “virtual reality projectors”.
But regarding what you said above I would like to ask you to take the time to listen to this interview from Larry Warren, one the key witnesses.
It’s an interview with researcher and investigator Peter Robbins and Larry Warren.
Listen to what he said in that interview and what all those others did say they saw and experienced, and then ask yourself the following question.

Was it really possible that that all was indeed staged by humans, that it was done by so called black ops who did use some very special technology and remotely controllable flying vehicles with very special flying capabilities as seen by those two objects in the woods by the witnesses, the flying objects/lights in the sky, and especially those strange beings by one of those objects by so many men?

media.abovetopsecret.com...

You can read about it here.

rendlesham-incident.co.uk...




Originally posted by Pimander
Could the abductions be MILABS? If there was really psy-ops going on there, it would be easy to fool a person under hypnosis or even fool a hypnotist if you are suggesting we rely on that type of testimony...


I know of the existence of MILABS, but I do not believe that that was used during this case, because there were too many men of the base itself involved and even some civilians.



Originally posted by Pimander

As there were nuclear weapons stored on the base, security was tight and it had to be possible to move equipment in and out in secret - so all the men on the base would not be aware if unusual equipment was brought in.


Yes I also think that is possible.


Originally posted by Pimander

I am suggesting that there could be another explanation for many encounters


I agree.


Originally posted by Pimander

- perhaps this one too.


Not for me.

edit on 7/1/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 





That’s no problem; I based my opinion about this case after reading pretty much information about it and especially the testimonies of those witnesses who were involved.


You've read everything about the case - but not the Chapter from Vallee's book that I recently posted here? You seem to have conveniently sidestepped it in regards to your follow-up comments to Pimander. No problem - it's a lot of text. But it details much about Larry Warren and contradictions in the whole story. It's still interesting. There is other testimony from Warren where he describes being taken into an underground base near Rendlesham and being drugged as well.

Everybody knows the idea of there being a false flag disclosure or extraterrestrial threat made up by "the powers that be". Obviously you must know something about stagecraft and astral body extractions - as you are using the Hidden Truth-Forbidden Knowledge book cover as your avatar. This Rendlesham incident could very well be part of this same long-term agenda. Details about time travelers from future timelines coming back to obtain genetic material from our timeline to sustain an ailment of these human beings of the future have come through hypnosis sessions with some of the Rendlesham witnesses. This correlates well with the information from Dr. Dan Burisch, who most people regard as being prime time disinfo.
edit on 8-1-2011 by corsair00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by spacevisitor
 





That’s no problem; I based my opinion about this case after reading pretty much information about it and especially the testimonies of those witnesses who were involved.


You've read everything about the case.

You seem to have conveniently sidestepped it in regards to your follow-up comments to Pimander.


So you start by twisting my words that I have said that I did read “everything” about that case and imply immediately after that, that I conveniently have sidestepped your post in regards to my follow-up comments to Pimander which is a lie, and still expect from me to give you a serious answer?

edit on 9/1/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by The GUT
What did you think of "the lone chemist" piece, btw?

This could get fascinating, so I hope more folk will join in with their take & info. Back later.

The RAND 'Exploitation of Superstition for Purposes of Psychological Warfare' report is something I haven't read in ages.



Well I thought it ( Rendlesham) was a big hoax myself. Thank you for putting up the Rand Document. I have never seen it before. It looks badly typed as the words extend outside the box. Are you sure it is not a hoax? How come such an august organisation has such poor typists?

Rgds
T
edit on 9-1-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join