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: 121
87
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for the update. I was wondering what was going on with that and am still curious to see what if anything we will learn that we don't already know.


originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
a reply to: mirageman
As for the redactions themselves, these are more likely to be because of 'unsexy' reasons than anything else ie. personal details, or details which may have led to the identification of a particular individual, thus breaching the DPA. From some experience, this was common.
That was my first guess also, even before reading your reply.


One final thing: Nick Pope is sensationalising this massively. I'm talking Iraq-dossier-level 'sexing-up', or Daily Mail style 'immigrants cause cancer' levels of hyperbole. The reality of the system is that it is a very banal and bureaucratic structure doing its best to be transparent; his attempts to add levels of conspiracy to this (and, I note, portray himself as a 'big deal' yet again) are quite farcical when faced with a reality that is far more likely to be that the initial redaction failed to redact a name or other identifying feature.
Nick Pope does like making a mountain out of a molehill, but it seems like that's more or less what most career ufologists do, though there have been rare exceptions who didn't do that.




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: GovernmentSauce




Nick Pope is sensationalising this massively. I'm talking Iraq-dossier-level 'sexing-up', or Daily Mail style 'immigrants cause cancer' levels of hyperbole. The reality of the system is that it is a very banal and bureaucratic structure doing its best to be transparent; his attempts to add levels of conspiracy to this (and, I note, portray himself as a 'big deal' yet again) are quite farcical when faced with a reality that is far more likely to be that the initial redaction failed to redact a name or other identifying feature.


I don't actually have anything against Nick. He has slowly changed attitudes in the media and public down the years towards UFOs. I know he now 'bigs up' his MoD career now he's moved to the United States and become a full time UFOtainer. So I don't really expect anything else.

But you are of course correct. People in the civil service do what everyone does. They prioritise their important work first, they are at time under extreme pressure and they also make errors (there are some in the released MoD UFO files like names that were not redacted). I suspect that with international tensions the way they are perhaps there are details about locations of military hardware, technical information relating to radar coverage and a few other things that may need revisiting.

I doubt there's a smoking gun to be found in the files anyway. However it's also a fact that these documents were not actually released in the original "Reveal All the UFO Files" policy trumpeted by the MoD in recent years. It also seems NONE of the documents listed are being released at present. Is it all down to clerical error?



Apologies if it came out a little too harsh on NP there - I have nothing against him either and think that he did some good work in the promotion and understanding of the phenomena, certainly in his early years as a 'UFOlogist'. What I was trying to convey in my post was frustration solely at his interpretation of this delay, not his work overall. He is way off the mark on this one, and I suspect he himself knows this - but is playing the game of self-promotion that he has lapsed into in more recent years.
OK, so there is a little dig at his more recent career there


As for the slow release of so many docs, then I believe one has to remember the different priorities different departments within the same agency will have: the press dept will want to trumpet loudly the openness and transparency of the agency with eye-catching headlines, even when the headline may not represent 100% of the facts... Therefore it's very easy to get a pat on the back for a job well done with a press release such as 'all our UFO files are released' when the actual release represents, say, 60% of the total files - as long as there is a plan to release the others 'at a later date.' This may be considered 'good practice' in some places...

And of course, there are always going to be some examples of sensitive issues which will be the subject of debate, which will take time, and which may result in certain information never being released. A look at the exemption list gives a good flavour of what may or may not be revealed, and remember that absolute exemptions will always be withheld.

As for a 'smoking gun' - if such a thing were to exist, does anyone think that it would be released innocuously in amongst a series of files? Released without fanfare? Or even released?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for the update. I was wondering what was going on with that and am still curious to see what if anything we will learn that we don't already know.


originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
a reply to: mirageman
As for the redactions themselves, these are more likely to be because of 'unsexy' reasons than anything else ie. personal details, or details which may have led to the identification of a particular individual, thus breaching the DPA. From some experience, this was common.
That was my first guess also, even before reading your reply.


One final thing: Nick Pope is sensationalising this massively. I'm talking Iraq-dossier-level 'sexing-up', or Daily Mail style 'immigrants cause cancer' levels of hyperbole. The reality of the system is that it is a very banal and bureaucratic structure doing its best to be transparent; his attempts to add levels of conspiracy to this (and, I note, portray himself as a 'big deal' yet again) are quite farcical when faced with a reality that is far more likely to be that the initial redaction failed to redact a name or other identifying feature.
Nick Pope does like making a mountain out of a molehill, but it seems like that's more or less what most career ufologists do, though there have been rare exceptions who didn't do that.


Yes, I agree that self-promotion seems to have been been something of a trait amongst a fair few ufologists. Amongst some sceptics too. I don't necessarily think that it always lessens the message that the self-promoter is trying to convey; however it certainly becomes easier to attack the individual.
Stephen Hawking has become quite adept at promoting himself, for example, but it does not make his work on Hawking Radiation incorrect



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GovernmentSauce
I've got noting against self promotion, but what I meant about making a mountain out of a mole hill is for example pretending the radiation readings at Rendlesham were significant when obviously they weren't and other such exaggerations:

Nick Pope and Alien Invaders

Pope is "the man who still pushes the "Cosford incident" as unexplained, when in fact there is an obvious explanation for the majority of the reports on 31st March 1993... The same man who discussed an obvious image of a gull as "If I was still there [on the UFO desk] I'd be looking at this very closely. The object looks structured, symmetrical and metallic"... The same man who continues to portray the radiation readings as hard evidence of something unusual at Rendlesham forest when in fact the readings are meaningless."
Or if you're right that the reason the documents haven't been released yet is just due to some information which might personally identify the people involved, Pope is making a mountain out of that molehill by trying to paint it as something more significant than it actually is.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: GovernmentSauce
I've got noting against self promotion, but what I meant about making a mountain out of a mole hill is for example pretending the radiation readings at Rendlesham were significant when obviously they weren't and other such exaggerations:

Nick Pope and Alien Invaders

Pope is "the man who still pushes the "Cosford incident" as unexplained, when in fact there is an obvious explanation for the majority of the reports on 31st March 1993... The same man who discussed an obvious image of a gull as "If I was still there [on the UFO desk] I'd be looking at this very closely. The object looks structured, symmetrical and metallic"... The same man who continues to portray the radiation readings as hard evidence of something unusual at Rendlesham forest when in fact the readings are meaningless."
Or if you're right that the reason the documents haven't been released yet is just due to some information which might personally identify the people involved, Pope is making a mountain out of that molehill by trying to paint it as something more significant than it actually is.


Yes, I couldn't agree with you more. The 'mountain out of a molehill' phrase was exactly what I was thinking of using in my initial post, although I elected to then go a little further in my description

You're right on the money here, for me.

The only addendum I will add is that personal details may be just one of a list of potential minor details which may be being considered for redaction.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Ok.

I'm going to respond to this with my opinion. It's my opinion. JV might disagree
with it. But I have my reasons for giving it.

CTJ, I hear you completely on the signal to noise ratio example.

When I re-read the pentacle memorandum, i can definitely see
your point.. what's the harm in creating a baseline? It's quite rational. In the UFO
racket, most of us say "Oh! it's 95% misidentifidation and hoax but the other 5%
is real".

Well where do we get that 5%? Do we pull it out of our arse? On one level or
another, we are doing a baseline, or using someone else's baseline (like from
project blue book).

So this is a completely valid thing to do!

But I suspect that JV took this very personally. He's a scientist. Just the thought
that he might have been fed fudged data and used as the "placebo group" in a
double-blind study must have made him go a little loopy.

Now, I don't know what other data he has/had access to, which might cause him
to think that the government didn't just do that once.. but has been doing it ALL
ALONG. He may have such data. He may not have such data. I don't know.

But it's certainly reasonable to ASSUME the government has been deceiving us
repeatedly for years.. I mean, we have proof of that in myriad cases, both in
UFOlogy and all sorts of other conspiracies (Tuskegee airmen, MK Ultra,
Oliver North.. endless examples).

But here's the kicker. This is why I keep going on about multiple deception
levels.

IMHO something unusual happened.

The Government did "cook the books", pre-stage observations and perhaps DID
(and still do) fake entire UFO waves. But it bit them in the ass too.

The "Phenomenon" is real.. it has been since not long after multicell organisms
evolved here (IMHO).

It sees that we want to believe in UFOs, so it has been playing along.
(I can explain in detail).

So.. the very farce of UFOlogy put forward by the government HAS CREATED
a semi-out of control "REAL" "appearance" of UFOs, which are caused by the
Phenomenon.

When I met JV, I explained my POV to him on this matter. I can't of course
say what his response was, as I promised him not to quote him, which i
never have.

If I was a rabid ATS'er, I'd write this all up formally and milk it for stars and flags.
Well, I don't have the desire for that kind of thing. I don't like starting posts.

But I was recently asked about the subject of government disinfo, so I chose this
post as a way to
respond.

Kev
edit on 8-11-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: formatting



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
My apologies if this has already been posted however as it's people talking directly about their personal experience I think it's worth the effort. It's the testimony of two guys who were working radar the night of Halt's experience. Anyway, more grist for the mill




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I think everyone interested in this case should plan to try and get this new book.
I checked it out on Amazon. Its about an 800 page book. I can see this will be a must have. Possibly sheds a lot of new light on this subject.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FireMoon

I am pretty sure the two radar operators were mentioned in this thread long before Halt mentioned them.
No harm in adding the interview at all Firemoon. All adds to the mountain of evidence.

Almost 36 years now...another year nearly over.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

If it will fit down the chimney with Santa then I 'might' be receiving a nice present.

I'll let you know if I've been a good boy, data.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Book is out, but dang, it's pretty pricey. paperback listed at 45 dollars!



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Glutton for punishment, eh?

I'll get Halts book eventually but I'm not sure I relish the thought of 800 more pages!

I've not bothered to look for myself but any news on Jim Pennistons forthcoming book?
Something on the TV about time travel brought him to my mind the other day.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

please do!



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

reviews on Amazon are top notch. $45 for a book is indeed pricey though.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I have now come across two postings regarding a new interview with a retired USAF Officer who was also at Bentwaters and saw the alleged ufo sightings that many others have seen as well. This source link is from the New York Post.

Steve Longero talks about what he saw:


“I think it was something not from this world,” Longero told The Sun.


He was on duty on the first night of sightings.

He talks more about the sighting:

We had a very sophisticated alarm system and everything just went off,” he recalled. Longero continued: “It was real kind of quiet and this thing hovering over the trees, and you were like kind of tracking it and like, ‘What is this?’ And it was like following, it was like watching us, that’s what it looked like to us. It seemed like something was watching us.” He said the supposed UFO had fluorescent lights that were flickering red and green.


For what its worth, there is a much more detailed interview posted on the website openmindstv.com, which as I understand is not able or allowed to be used/posted anymore.
edit on 06pm31pm5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Hi data. The Halt book is indeed a pricey £35 for UK readers.(The US price is pretty much the current going price via exchange rates). I'll let you know if it turns up via Santa's sleigh
.

As regards the Steve Longero interview there is a full article in the online magazine Outer Limits Magazine starting on page 48.

I haven't read it all yet!

ETA : Now I have read it I am not sure it adds much to the story. I think the passage of time has perhaps dulled Longero's memory.

Longero claims he saw John Burroughs, Jim Penniston, Ed Cabansag and Larry Warren out there the night he was involved. He also talks of the lightalls being out there. He seems to be confusing the first night with the third night. Burroughs is the only witness who was out there both of those nights and he was 'off-duty' on the third night (27th Dec 1980) but turned up in civilian clothes.



edit on 6/12/16 by mirageman because: ETA



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Surprised Foxnews.com had this on their front page. I agree, couldnt really see that it added anything to the story.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111
It is about time someone else speaks out. Nice that he puts Larry on the scene.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: 111DPKING111
It is about time someone else speaks out. Nice that he puts Larry on the scene.



The problem is he also puts Penniston and Cabansag on the scene. So he is obviously confused about who was on duty with him and what was going on. I've never heard about alarms going off either. I don't think he's telling lies. I just think it's a case of trying to remember things from 36 years ago.

I can remember the exact moment when I found out John Lennon had been murdered 36 years ago but I don't remember what I ate for dinner that day. I think Steve Longero's memories are probably also influenced by what he's seen and heard about the incident in the time that has passed. Unfortunately his account adds nothing much of interest to the case.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman
"One of the little known rumors surrounding the Rendlesham Forest “UFO landing” case is that at the height of the strange encounters a panicky British Government was on the absolute verge of evacuating a number of nearby prisons. In the 1980s, the late Graham Birdsall, who was the editor of Britain’s UFO Magazine from the 1990s to the early 2000s, had the opportunity to speak with one George Wild – a prison officer at Armley Prison in the English city of Leeds – who had some intriguing data to impart on this notable aspect of the story. According to what Wild told Birdsall, a senior prison official from the British government’s Home Office had once let it slip to him, Wild, that high-level orders had arrived at the nearby HM Prison Highpoint North advising staff to prepare for a possible evacuation of the inmates due to a matter of grave national security. Interestingly, the official records for Highpoint, for December 1980 (the time of the nearby Rendlesham Forest incident) have gone missing."

SOURCE quote from a Q & A session on Rendlesham ufo drama. NICK REDFURN

MirageMan have you looked or dug into any more on what happened at the nearby prison?
it's just another piece i would love to know more about but there is little to find.
any thoughts/info? cheers.

edit on 7/12/2016 by stealthyaroura because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join