Ive always wondered why the military would appoint a civilian who is not strictly a scientist to head up the MOD program on UFO's.
Id also like to ask if the main focus for the investigations he was doing was to identify invading craft / tech from other countries from a purely
defense standpoint or was it to try to look for visiting aliens?
edit on 7-5-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
Nick, with regards to the Rendelshem Forest UFO Incident of 26th December 1980, to your knowledge have there been any reports logged of the same
"Craft" being sited elsewhere in the UK on the days prior to 26th December 1980?
I'd also like to ask Nick about the Rendlesham/Bentwaters incident in 1980 and which seems to be a solid UFO case with plenty of witnesses testimony
at first . But it also has so many contradictions when you dig deeper.
i) Does he have any theory as to why Jim Penniston believes he walked around a craft with strange symbols on the side for 45 minutes, took photographs
of it (that didn't come out), and then years later recalled a binary code that was downloaded to him. Whilst John Burroughs, who was yards away from
Penniston, recalls nothing but seeing undefinable lights in Rendlesham Forest?
ii) On the second night of events Colonel Halt describes beams of light coming from unknown craft in the sky over the twin bases shining into the
(nuclear) weapons storage area. Given this was a tense time during the Cold War is there anything on record to state why the Colonel did not put the
base(s) on full alert and request fighter cover?
iii) Can Nick give us his own thoughts as to what may have happened at Rendlesham in 1980?
Hi Nick, what is your own personal views of the late Dr James E McDonald and his investigation's he carried out on numerous UFO cases in the USA in
the 50s and 60s. That Dr McDonald clearly exposed a number of "force fit" debunking explanations given by the USAF on a number of "high strangeness"
cases, i ask this because i would like your opinion on this given the fact that those cases McDonald exposed as "force fit debunking" ones and that
the data contained in them was warrant enough for the military intelligences at the time to apply "force fit debunking explanations on them.Is this
grounds that a systematic agenda of covering up those UFO cases that where harder to explain or that they would not submit to any known natural
explanations and any force fitting explanations was preferred than the ET hypotheses.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason
Nick seems quick to dismiss 'reentering satellites' as the solution to a number of UK-area UFO waves. In my experience, this common reaction
reflects lack of reliable knowledge of just how weird such reentries can actually look, and be perceived as.
To defend his dismissal of that category of explanation -- he knows which cases we're talking about -- ask him to briefly describe what a reentering
satellite or rocket body actually would look like, and the limits to the degree of misperception that witnesses could be expected to have.
Could a person watching a fireball swarm from a reentering booster rocket report seeing an angularly-large structured sharp-edged star-occulting
object drifting soundlessly across the sky for several minutes? Is that misperception even possible?
Hello Nick, I'd like to ask if you've ever heard about the release of (or existence of) any gun camera UFO footage from the U.K. Government?
It mentions in this article by MUFON's John F. Schuessler that the U.S.
Government have never released a single frame of it and the reason I'm interested is that U.K. Under Secretary of State Ralph Noyes once mentioned
secret screenings of UFO Gun camera footage for Air Defense staff as far back as 1970.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2015, The Above Network, LLC.