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

page: 108
95
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Does anyone know if Pike found a publisher for his "final edition" SkywatcherUK mentioned?


From what I could gather Andrew retired a while back and could not find a publisher for his final edition. He decided that self publication of an e-book was not really something he wanted to get involved with. So it remains unavailable to the public.

I might be wrong. But I think he was getting mightily frustrated at people incorrectly claiming he was working for the MoD, wrongly assuming conducting experiments in Suffolk at he the time of RFI and generally annoying him via social media. So he seems to have walked away from it all at present.
edit on 6/7/16 by mirageman because: added for clarification




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: infomaniachousewife
a reply to: Defragmentor

It is my opinion that LAEG is a combination of JB and AB's accounts. It is entirely possible other documents are forged. He told me he knew a forger.........



Wow. If that is the case then that puts even darker clouds over the whole LAEG narrative. They would have to be better than that Lennon photo though!

As for Ian's work on the case. It cannot be dismissed. It is not all about the lighthouse as those with only a modicum of knowledge on the case seem to think. But could that lighthouse really have fooled so many people for three nights, yet never seemingly done so before or afterwards?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
So he seems to have walked away from it all at present.


Not quite. Andrew Pike has recently been communicating with Tracy Farley on Facebook about Rendlesham.

(Although Tracy is now banned from ATS following her recent participation in this thread, I presume that she is still following this discussion).

I haven't asked her to relay any messages to Andrew Pike because, well, I had enough to do with his book a couple of years ago.
edit on 6-7-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

I tried to keep up with what was going on here between them, but it made me lose track of the thread



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

It's seems most likely that your intentions were misunderstood and it was assumed your motives were less than honest.

Unable to take back your PDF version of the book, they did the next best thing. Say it was fake. Not complex and rather obvious move.

I'm at a loss at why people are so desperate to read Pike's book.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

At least we know where the "phenomenon" photo came from!

On a slightly related topic, I've read that Brenda Butler has her own binary code, similar to Penniston's. I've heard rumours that Burroughs has his own binary codes, but I'm tempted to dismiss that as a smear...



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: infomaniachousewife

I'm not sure if this is connected to the A10 incidents, but Have you heard the following m:

- That a Tupalev 95-B (brown bear?) was flying over the east coast during the RFI. That the media were quickly silence about it
- That the Tupalev was not flying from USSR but Ranmestein
- That two Russian pilots ejected into the sea
- That it crashes at Bentwaters
- Spares were requested from Germany
- That the Tupalev could launch satellites
- A satellite was dropped by it in the forest
- the film cannister was recovered
- that it possibly also carried an RPV designed to infiltrate US military posts
- that the plane stayed at Bentwaters for a few months, was repaired and flew to Boscomb

My own theory is that -
- This either happened or is a persistent dinsinformation story attempted multiple times in slightly different ways
- if the RPV exists it was nuclear powered and unshielded
- that possibly the west flew captured Tupalevs into USSR airspace (with some sort of stealth test) risking nuclear war

This would fit in with Halt refusing to identify what fell off a plane and needed to be covered up.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Oh yes. There was a radio show about it :

Behind the Paranormal with Brenda Butler and Ronnie Dugdale

Others following this may find this interview with Brenda Butler and Ronnie Dugdale from 2013 interesting. Or just simply crazy. Brenda describes a 'reptoid' from the Pleiades who stayed with her, only ate greens and sweets, could disappear at will, read books backwards and even use a telephone without getting charged! He even went with Brenda to visit Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill Norton.

Brenda mentions binary codes at about 22 mins in. Apparently in 1979 she downloaded symbols and codes and in 1983 downloaded 'loads of codes' and it's been ongoing. She didn't think anything of them though. At just before the 27 min mark a familiar name comes up.................

One message even decoded to "Visit 83 landing OMP"

There are a lot of farms in Suffolk and the whiff of the cowfields can be witnessed all around the world.


Personally I think the Butler did it!





edit on 6/7/16 by mirageman because:




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

I'm sure I would have appreciated Andrew Pikes book. Thanks for your efforts and ethics. Easy to understand distancing himself from the craziness.

Thanks to mirageman I was able to read Andrew Pikes article in UFO Matrix magazine. Rare to have a scientist look at these things with an open mind. He did give me some new things to think about.



Onward and upward


edit on WedpmvAmerica/Chicago0572016307pm7 by DaveBowman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

As I mentioned before Andrew Pike is not a member of ATS so won't be replying to any of this. However I would like to say I worked with Andrew for many years and learnt first hand about all these goings on.

As I say FIRST HAND - key point. Much of the trouble has been speculation with no evidence presented, because none existed, second hand lies repeated as fact. Now that still goes on almost since day one and especially over the past ten years! This all started long before he walked out in 2006.

When he did try again in 2014 what happened? The MoD lies started from John Burroughs and Linda Molton Howe carried along by others who just accepted the lies and set about Andrew like a pack of wolves. Thankfully Nick Pope has confirmed Andrew was not MoD. So Burroughs then turned on Nick and his father!

So what are you all frightened of? Does the CIVILIAN scientist who started looking into this 48 hours after the events pose a threat to you? The fact he is NOT gagged by the MoD, an expert in plasma, earthlights, radar and the rest is not an advantage to you? I really do not understand you ufologists.

He was alway ready to help. He answered thousands of letters, emails, etc while at UFO Magazine, always available at the conferences to answer queries, etc. Always polite when I saw people screaming abuse directly into his face. I witnessed Graham Birdsall pick up one ufologist by his collar and dragged him out of Imperial College London gave him his money back and slammed the door in the abuser's face. And that was in 1997! Why the hell did you treat him like @!%# then think it was ok?

And there have been a few porky pies about him on this thread and others on ATS, haven't there?

The other key point, is so many of you never really bothered to get to knew him, his views on the MoD, weaponizing plasmas and space. You had the chance but chose another route, bitching and whining and lies. Now he is retired who do you think really lost out - answers on a postcard.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SkywatcherUK

Hmmm.. From what I've red in this topic Andrew's research is taken quite seriously by the key contributers. I even had wrong assumptions about his role corrected quickly. Just to say not all are the same.

I'm rather new to 'ufology' and I think it's a shame I can't check his research out. Even all the negativity surrounding his research mentioned in your reply only makes me think he was onto something. Mind I understand his decision, I would probably do the same.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SkywatcherUK



So what are you all frightened of? Does the CIVILIAN scientist who started looking into this 48 hours after the events pose a threat to you? The fact he is NOT gagged by the MoD, an expert in plasma, earthlights, radar and the rest is not an advantage to you? I really do not understand you ufologists. ...

You had the chance but chose another route, bitching and whining and lies.


That seems an understandable, but sad generalisation? I don't think ufologists are one homogenised group. Many ufologists, including Mirage would love to have read your book.

The fact is, Andrew hasn't made it possible for any but a select few to read the book. Surely, that's part of the problem? He's confined opinion of his research to an "elite" who may or may not have their own agenda by not allowing the book to circulate, either commercially or for free (his choice which).

I'm truly sorry for the problems that Andrew has been through, but I don't think it's anything much to do with the vast majority of people here, or the general public at large?

Put simply, I think by restricting circulation of his report, he's allowed the lies to flourish. Even if a publisher could not be found there were many options available:
- AmazonCreateSpace
- Kindle
- Free PDF with work done for FREE by Isaac Koi.

Also, you've addressed your reply to Mirage, who has made a conscious effort to correct "porkies" about Andrew conducting tests before the RFI etc.

If Andrew ever wants to sell the rights to his book, drop me a line, personally I think it's a crying shame that the problems caused by an inner circle of readers is responsible for all this trouble, and some form of wider distribution would make it MUCH harder for others to lie about Andrew.

Kind regards

Chris



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SkywatcherUK




So what are you all frightened of? Does the CIVILIAN scientist who started looking into this 48 hours after the events pose a threat to you? The fact he is NOT gagged by the MoD, an expert in plasma, earthlights, radar and the rest is not an advantage to you? I really do not understand you ufologists.


I can only respond by echoing what ctj83 has said. I don't actually consider myself a ufologist. I am interested in the topic. But generally keep out of the way of 'ufo' people in real life. Most of the other participants in this thread are probably of a similar nature. I assume this comment was a wide statement to 'ufologists' in general. And it is most unfortunate that a group of them could not treat Andrew with the respect he deserved.




And there have been a few porky pies about him on this thread and others on ATS, haven't there?


As ctj83 said wherever these misunderstanding have appeared I have done my best to correct them. But perhaps I have misunderstood some points myself.



The other key point, is so many of you never really bothered to get to knew him, his views on the MoD, weaponizing plasmas and space


Again from a personal point of view I would have liked to have read Andrew's book. But I also respect his right to privacy and decision not re-issue it. That decision. however, could lead to misinterpretation by those who do have copies. Those that don't cannot check the source for themselves. So to quote your own point we get '....speculation with no evidence presented, because none existed, second hand lies repeated as fact'.

That all said I don't think you were particularly aiming this at me.So I understand your reasons for posting what you said in defence of Andrew. Unfortunately there are some crazy people out there. So if you are in touch with Andrew then please pass on my thanks for the piece he wrote in UFO Matrix magazine. Perhaps he would consider making that freely available if not the book (as it's now some 6 years old). But if not then I fully respect his right to privacy and I, at least, will not be bugging him or annoying him.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Manipulation In The RFI
Satellite, Spyplanes and the Cold War.

Over the past six months or so, I've focussed on looking at how investigators changed what they said, and how certain stories were repeatedly injected into the RFI narrative. One of these has been the constant use of science fiction tropes. The other, has been the story of a satellite retrieval.

I've found it hard to pin down exactly who made these claims, as the stories keep changing. I've referenced my finds with photos. Mods / book authors, feel free to remove anything that you feel contravenes fair use.

Background

During various RFI related books and articles, I discovered a continuing narrative thread about satellites. I'd like to suggest that at the heart of the RFI someone has gone to significant lengths to keep reintroducing this. Why? As part of a hoax. What was hoaxed, and why, I'll leave to your imagination, although I'll just add that I don't think its the obvious answer.

Jenny Randles

Author and investigator. Randles has written many books and articles and joined the earliest investigators of RFI, Butler and Street to write SkyCrash.

Although SkyCrash is largely about the UFO angle, there are several references to soviet satellites.

In skyCrash we are told that an anonymous caller told the team to look for 'Brown Bears'. According to the author, US Airforce terminology refers to downed soviet satellites as 'brown bears'. My own research has not born this out. NATO refer to a specific Soviet Tupelov craft as a 'Bear'. The Tupolev Tu-95. I've noticed those that reference this in other books, claim it was a Tupelov 142. This is a maritime survellience variant of the TU95. The Nato designate 'Bear' has several variants including one that was powered (as test) by a nuclear power plant. The other was designed to launch satellites, although I'm not sure it was ever produced.

Randles references Dr Alan Bond, of HOTOL fame, telling her he believed the RFI was the result of a Soviet Satellite, that entered the atmosphere and was intentionally brought down to the forest.

Contradictions

In skyCrash we have the following contradictions:
- An anonymous caller claims the RFI was a 'Brown Bear'
- Shadow organisation APEN tell Randles via another organisation that the RFI was a downed satellite.

In Butler's Skycrash in Time:
- Halt told them to look for a 'Brown Bear'

In Randles Correspondence with Ray Boeche:
- Dr Alan Bond said he believe that a US nuclear reactor designed for aerospace use was at the center of the event, not exactly the USSR nuclear reactor from a satellite. Subtly different.

In Haunted Skies:
Butler's former partner claims that a Tupelov 142 was over the east coast of the uk on the night of the RFI, but this was covered up in the media.

In Butler's Skkycrash In Time and Haunted Skies Vol 8 Karin / Karen:
- Worked on base
- Was fired
- Stole flight plans for Tupelov. According to Karen, it flew from Germany, to RFI. Landed. Pilots ditched in water. Satellite / vehicle either dropped in forest or recovered from sea
- Tupelov needed repair and parts were requested from Germany
- Stolen Tupelov made regular flights from base in Germany to Bentwaters, Scotland

Conclusion

We have differing statements from these authors as to what Brown Bear meant, and who defined it (APEN, mystery caller, or Halt). We have differing statements as to what Dr Alan Bond believed - but the common angle is the downed satellite one.

Many of the more public accounts airbrush out the possibility of a stolen Tupelov carrying satellite / sensitive equipment and depositing it at Bentwaters. They instead focus on a satellite being reentered using a HAARP like control system. You'll find a similar story in Greg Bishops Project Beta / X Descending.

Questions

Why did certain researchers present one story of what a Brown Bear? Why were others given a different interpretation? Why was the Tupelov story put to one side, and only the satellite part focussed on?

More importantly, who was Karen, why did she approach Butler? Who took the time to create this story and fake the photo of the retrieved item being transported away?

Below you'll find photos of excerpts from Haunted Skies Volume 8, SkyCrash, SkyCrash in time, UFO retrievals and the US nuclear reactor that Randles told Ray that Bond suspected.






edit on 7-7-2016 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2016 by Springer because: added external content tags



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I gather that Andrew Pike has said on Facebook he will be contacting ATS admins about getting me banned from ATS because I asked for his permission a couple of years ago to make a scanned copy of his book freely available online after he complained that he was unable to share his work other than at a financial loss.

As I said before, I have some trouble following some of Andrew Pike's thought processes in his book and his online posts...



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

I take it, that you merely asked and did not in fact make a copy nor distribute it in any way?

If asking a question can get one banned, then we are all in trouble.

Kev



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
I take it, that you merely asked and did not in fact make a copy nor distribute it in any way?


I made a PDF copy and rendered it searchable, so that Andrew Pike could be given it and/or I could upload it if he gave his permission. I haven't uploaded that searchable PDF. Indeed, I've had to refuse one or two private requests for me to share a copy of it. (I don't like refusing to share material, but sometimes I have no choice). As I said a couple of years ago, I simply moved on to other projects - including publications where the relevant authors _want_ my help to make the material freely available online.

Given that Andrew Pike says that I scanned a "fake", the copyright over the PDF is in fact presumably held by the hoaxer...
edit on 7-7-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

I've been studying shamanic practices from around the world recently, in order to contrast and compare my own life experiences.

Now, there are two basic approaches to triggering "shamanic experiences"; the drug related method (commonly used in South America) and the let me call it "hysteria method" more commonly used in North America.

By hysteria method the shaman would sing, dance, wildly play the drum and various other practices, but in short, the rational mind seems to be bypassed and "hysteria" triggers "contact with the spirit world".

Now I myself have spent my life using more yoga-like practices, but I can see where these practices, in part, lead to the same kind of place.

I'm mostly in "retirement" these days, so that I can more rationally investigate such phenomena, without being overcome by such phenomena.

But the reason I bring this up is not off-topic.

I've been thinking for some time, that once people start "believing" that "UFOs" might be present/involved, then they would be prone to "seeing things", which may or may not actually be there (sometimes both I'd imagine).

This is also part of historical shamanism, and also part of parapsychological testing.

In parapsychological testing for example, it's not uncommon to "fake positive results" to get the test subject excited, and then stop faking it.. this has been shown to increase the genuine phenomenon (if any.. it's controversial I know).

Or if you like, you can just call this "conversion disorder" ("mass hysteria).

So let's say that "something did fall out of the sky"

or perhaps the real test was to FAKE something "falling out of the sky".

It scarcely matters. Either way you might get the "shamanic effect".

What was either fake or non-existent might trigger the vision of, or perhaps sometimes the actuality of, something which borders on the "paranormal".

Kev



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Well you are the barrister, not me!

But even this cursory search of EU/UK copyright law:


copyrightuser.org...
(then jump to Copyright Directive link on this page)
(that link would not insert properly into ATS)

seems to indicate that since you did not distribute anything, that what you did was in fact perfectly legal
and you obviously were acting in good faith in any case, and that's if in fact it was the actual original
and not a "fake".

This whole affair is absurd on it's face, just like much of the entire RFI mythos that has evolved
over the years.

RFI is "Britian's Roswell" INDEED.

The nonsense involved will someday swell up sufficiently to engulf the entire Earth, long before
the sun turns into a red giant.

Kev
edit on 7-7-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: link insertion issues



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear




In parapsychological testing for example, it's not uncommon to "fake positive results" to get the test subject excited, and then stop faking it.. this has been shown to increase the genuine phenomenon (if any.. it's controversial I know).


So 'the phenomenon' is created by (or at least affected by) human consciousness?




.......This whole affair is absurd on it's face, just like much of the entire RFI mythos that has evolved over the years. ....


I don't know why. But it seems this case really riles people, fires them with anger and pits them against each other. I really don't want to dwell any more on the recent abrasiveness surrounding it all. So I will be looking further into the recent updates in Fortean Times to keep the thread moving.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join