Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: Guest101

"You know what a vortex is, Tracy? Something that keeps going around in circles while eating all the energy from its surroundings. In that sense the RFI is a vortex, yes …
My only question now is, do I want to keep feeding it my energy?"

One of your better posts.

a reply to: Gaos0

No Gary, You have never known it all. That is clear. Jim has played you well indeed.
Have you met him yet?

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Over the last five years, I have had hundreds of Skype calls with Jim and spent hours and hours talking with him about all kinds of things - not just about the code. Also, Skype calls with him and John - also Joe Luciano. During those Skype calls - and mostly during the recent calls - I have questioned Jim and his answers have always been logical and acceptable - and this also includes the things you have questioned and aired your doubts about. He has shown and demonstrated how trivial most of it is.
I didn't live with the guy like you did, and therefore have not seen how he is or responds in certain situations, but despite that, I have got what I personally NEEDED to know concerning the work I have been doing and what I have discovered. And I am aware of the problems that can arise in getting too close.
The things I need to know are not necessarily the things you need to know - remember that.
The thing is your motives regarding the negative things you say about Jim is always going to be in question - e.g the "spurned partner" - seeing as he ended the relationship and kicked you out. And the reasons given to me as to why he did that makes sense.

a reply to: Gaos0

And as for him "playing me," I have no fear of that and I am not concerned. I have found what I have in the coordinates and seeing as it has provided some remarkable results that have led me to answers to things I was already researching and which has now attracted the assistance of others who are well-respected in their field - and that includes two mathematical professors - well, that is good enough for me. Why should I care about that?

The thing is your motives regarding the negative things you say about Jim is always going to be in question - e.g the "spurned partner" - seeing as he ended the relationship and kicked you out. And the reasons given to me as to why he did that makes sense.

You keep repeating what Jim told you, when things get into question mode.
These are things Jim told you only, nothing more.

There are specific things in the binary which ATS have questioned.

There are things indeed which occurred with Jim that I know, very much so.

There are also things you do not know too, as you were not privy to them.

So you can spin this beat till blue. It does not take away from the questions people
have raised and will continue to raise Gary. And I will continue to mention things I experienced
or know.

a reply to: Gaos0

Then you should not even need to debate anything, you should be presenting it.
Nothing more to this one Gary, no one is stopping you and no one is debunking
only in your mind. Question yes, most certainly.

From what I am reading you have not met Jim.

Get back to me when you do, and we will have this conversation again
once you sit face to face and he tells you the things he has held back.


And last, there are other things other than binary codes .
Is Jim going to be writing about the communications stuff he
was having and wrote and told another person about? Has that
been explained what was going on? That does not include all the
stuff I saw when with Jim. I just mention that one as it is someone
he was dreaming about. Yes more dreams.
You see Gary, there is much more to this dreaming caper.

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Again, as I think you missed it.
I have found what I have in the coordinates and seeing as it has provided some remarkable results that have led me to answers to things I was already researching and which has now attracted the assistance of others who are well-respected in their field - and that includes two mathematical professors - well, that is good enough for me. Why should I care about Jim having "played me." This goes far beyond Jim, you and me and anyone else.

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Dreams?? Oh right . . . yes, I see where you're coming from.

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Marylongstockings

Again, as I think you missed it.
I have found what I have in the coordinates and seeing as it has provided some remarkable results that have led me to answers to things I was already researching and which has now attracted the assistance of others who are well-respected in their field - and that includes two mathematical professors - well, that is good enough for me. Why should I care about Jim having "played me." This goes far beyond Jim, you and me and anyone else.

I

I can understand that Gary. But for now until the work is presented folks are questioning.
A different matter perhaps once you bring it out. But only then can that aspect be debated
and looked at. That will be the time when folks will be looked at closely. As in the folks
Jim has associated with, past present etc to trace were this might have derived from.

Others have already concluded Jim did it because of Sacredsites etc. And that aspect is really
compelling, but as have mentioned before. I suspect something else in this, but in the same
breath do not expect others to think as I do.

a reply to: Gaos0

Yes!

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Dreams. Really? Ok, I have wasted enough time on here. I have more important things to attend to. In itself, the code isn't the "be all and end all" of my life I hope you understand.

a reply to: Gaos0

Well that's how you met Jim is it not He dreamt of 23.5
and told me .

Enjoy your evening.

a reply to: mirageman

Might we all agree (who do not have a vested personal encumberance with it)

That at best hypothetical, and to all rational appearances fraudulent "binary codes" and the discussion therein and all the personal melodrama be considered "off topic" in terms of this post?

That any parties which wish to further beat this to death take it to chat, rant, the gray zone, or skunkworks, and stop crapping up a "UFO" thread with invalid and unrelated emotional tirades?

Just a suggestion to rescue this thread.

Thanks,

Kev

a reply to: Gaos0

a reply to: Marylongstockings


Guys - just a friendly word. It could be Endlesham not Rendlesham.

This is not facebook, or even like a lot of other forums.The moderators will step in and delete posts if they feel the Terms & Conditions are being violated or even if a thread is descending into personal squabbling. One of the site owners has posted recently in this thread. So it's unlikely to get ignored for too long.(as we saw yesterday).

I'm all for freedom of speech. But I also don't want my thread closed down as I don't regulate this site.

So please think about what you post to ATS!

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Agreed and happy to comply.

a reply to: mirageman

To take things on a slight diversion. I have noted something on the old Rendlesham Forum that ties in with a theory elsewhere that the SAS were involved in something going on.

Apparently (unconfirmed) but there was a SAS exercise at Bentwaters and the surrounding area in August of 1980. There is also a theory that this was all tied in with the Cash-Landrum Incident also in late December of 1980.

.....But electrifying the air is easy using a Van der Graff generator, a few dry ice machines hidden in fake trees (who would notice one or two extra in Rendlesham Forest especially in all the chaos of the night?) and an 'anti-gravity' machine using a helium balloon in a lightweight shell, yes I think it is possible and the most likely answer. Remote controlled by radio (hence the static and problems with the airmen's radios (jamming signals? Again standard SAS stuff).

Source : Rendlesham Incident Forum (archive)

What (sort of) ties the theories together is the ongoing Iranian Hostage Crisis which eventually saw the hostages released from the US Embassy in Tehran in early 1981. However the Iranians had not been straightforward in their negotiations and the Americans had conducted a failed rescue attempt in April of 1980. The British SAS had been much more successful a week or so later in ending the London Iranian Embassy Siege.

Were the Brits and Yanks working together in case the promised release of the US Hostages fell through once again? Did it involve a deception at a major US/RAF base complex and then in Texas a day or so later?

If so wouldn't we know by know?

I have to say this seems like something someone dreamed up and there's not a lot of evidence I have found to back this up. But then who needs evidence when you've got dreams?

a reply to: mirageman

I took part in a classified OP (the only time I've done such a thing) in the early 80s and it's still classified.

So...don't think something isn't still classified all these years later. It probably is.

But that theory you mentioned seems awfully cheese ball.

a reply to: mirageman

They are both banned from ATS, enough...

sigh...

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread MM (well right up until those two tried to turn into a facebook squabble at least) and it won't be shut down.