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: 126
87
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guest101
But these lights were not stationary, and there was more than one.
Though the lighthouse and even scintillating stars may have become part of the phenomena in the eye witnesses’ minds, there are a lot of clues that strange lights were actually moving around:
Here's an entire study done in 1936 where all the observers said the lights were moving, the only disagreement was about how much they were moving, and none of the lights were moving. You don't seem to be aware of this. Whether there were moving lights seen those three nights in Rendlesham forest I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't assume that just because a witness said lights are moving that they are actually moving, based on this study where we know the light wasn't moving and everybody said it was moving. The "group norms" is another psychological issue.

Sherif (1936): Group Norms and Conformity

Muzafer Sherif conducted a classic study on conformity in 1936. Sherif put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved. Psychologists had previously discovered that a small, unmoving light in a dark room often appeared to be moving. This was labeled the autokinetic effect. The autokinetic effect is an illusion because the light does not actually move. However, people almost always believe that it does.

Why did Sherif study the autokinetic effect?

Realizing that an experience that is completely "in people's heads" might be readily influenced by suggestion, Sherif decided to study how people were influenced by other people's opinions, in their perception of the autokinetic effect.

First Sherif studied how subjects reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were in a room by themselves. He found that they soon established their own individual norms for the judgment—usually 2 to 6 inches. In other words, when given many opportunities (trials) to judge the movement of the light, they settled on a distance of 2-6 inches and became consistent in making this judgment from trial to trial.

What happened when people judged the autokinetic effect by themselves?

What happened when people were put into groups?

In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise. People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches soon made smaller judgments like 4 inches. Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4 inches. People changed to more resemble the others in the group.

Sherif's subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects directly, "Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments," most denied it. However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed to the group judgment they recently made. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving about 4 inches. These subjects had been changed by the group experience, whether they realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms.

Group norms are agreed-upon standards of behavior. Sherif's experiment showed group norms are established through interaction of individuals and the leveling-off of extreme opinions. The result is a consensus agreement that tends to be a compromise...even if it is wrong.
It has been suggested that in the past we perhaps wrongly presumed that astronomers possessed the skills needed to evaluate UFO reports (such as the hiring of Dr Hynek for project bluebook) but that the skill sets we really needed were in the field of psychology. I think there's some truth to that and sadly it's largely unrecognized.

edit on 201713 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guest101
a reply to: ianrid

Even astronomers would have trouble attributing the fast 30 degree horizontal and vertical movements gestured by Gerry to the subtle effects that you bring up as explanation, Ian. Nor would they be able to explain why these subtle effects would cause such a response from the military.

I can imagine that after the departure of these lights the men, in their excitement, mistook scintillating stars for UFO’s. But in my opinion the RFI was more than mere scintillating stars and a lighthouse preluded by a fireball streaking by for a few seconds two nights earlier.


In addition, we have the witness testimony of two tower operators (Ike Barker and Jim Carey) who saw a red-orange object on radar pass over the tower, made visual contact with it, and watched it perform an incredible reverse manoeuvre.


Ike Barker said: "It wasn't like any radar target I've ever seen.

"It was travelling at an extremely high rate of speed. It passed over the control tower and then it stopped. I've never seen anything like the maneuverability that happened with this object.

"It was orange in colour and it popped into my mind that somebody was flying a basketball out here. There were lights around the centre but not like navigation lights.

"It was more like portholes, as if you were seeing the lights from the inside coming out. It hovered momentarily, reversed its course and went back out a high rate of speed."



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Defragmentor

Sorry, but I don’t think anyone here is going to be impressed by unsubstantiated, decades-after-the-event stories put out by UFO promoter Robert Hastings. UFOlogy needs better evidence than this, which was the message Isaac Koi was trying to get across.

But you are of course free to believe it if you like.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ


My first impression would be that fog (or humidity) would 'blur out/refract' the light making it impossible to see the source.

As for the optical illusion part, I think it's possible but for some reason I find it unlikely. Then again, the mind can play dirty tricks when seeing something it cannot determine what it is.


Differing weather conditions mean that the wind turbine 'illusion' cannot be seen except when conditions are clear. My point was that this may explain that what the airmen saw would not be visible all the time. For reference the weather conditions at Woodbridge in 1980 can be found at this link .
Anyway it's probably a minor point at best so I'll leave it there.
edit on 3/1/17 by mirageman because: clarification



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear




So, in your opinion, "why can't we let it be?"


Do You Want to Know a Secret?

Well as I've said a few times I think one of the main reasons is the entertainment factor from the interaction of the main characters in this more than 30 year old real life soap opera. (Badly scripted as it is at times). There's Binary Jim, Larry the Lyin', Broken Hearted John and the Colonel of Truth. A cast of supporting characters come and go whilst there are cameo roles for others.

I dare say even Ian must be amused at the never ending story that is Rendlesham.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

People take RFI, Roswell and other bogus soap operas so life and death serious!

There are long lists of better cases, which if they were investigated with 1% of the borderline mania of RFI..then we might actually learn something useful.

Kev



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Been interesting to catch up on Ian's contributions regarding the RF case and the fireball/lighthouse/stars explanation.

I do not have much doubt that all of these things had a role to play in this case but that is not the same thing as them being the whole explanation for the key events.

However, Ian has done us all a service by bringing those factors into play in this case as we always need the cool head of a sceptical investigator to raise issues like these in any case.

The sad thing is we would have known about them from the start had not the MoD/USAF hidden the case files and even held off releasing the Halt report to me in April 1983 when the cat was out of the bag (though they soon relented, of course).

All UFO sightings are candidates for resolution. 95% plus of them are indeed fully resolvable. Sometimes cases are so complicated that parts are explicable and other parts not and we need to try to figure out where the core of anything unresolved might remain.

Ian's cool eye has helped us cut through the case in that regard.

But for me that core remains here and surrounds the close encounter within the woods where John Burroughs, Jim Penniston and Ed Cabansag got close to the object and describe consistently the physiological effects that immersed them and seemed to emanate from the thing that they saw.

These are events that they have described pretty consistently for over 30 years. Jim talked to us on base in 1983 (his account is in Sky Crash under the pseudonym Archer). I first heard it direct from John Burroughs in Arizona just a few years later. I have never had serious doubt that they were describing some kind of encounter with an anomaly of some sort that created an energy field that swamped the forest and which they got into close proximity with.

From the off John was making no presumptions about its origin - not that it was alien and not necessarily that it was even artificial. He asked me lots of questions about UAP - in the sense of some kind of energy phenomenon. His open minded ness was what persuaded me something really interesting does seem to have happened here and yet been swamped by a number of things that were added to the mix by the circumstances that erupted around the witnesses and all of the others that got involved.

Which probably did include a raft of misperceptions in the aftermath that were made more probable by the confusion and secrecy that was prevalent.

That something interesting might have been going on in and around that forest as well as all the misperceptions is for me made most likely by the physiological experience of the three witnesses matching so well many other unrelated witnesses in other cases that they seem to have had no way to even be aware about.

Plus the number of other reported events in the same general area in the period before 1980 - the UAP on the beach that scared a postman and his dog being an excellent example that RF was not an isolated incident.

Not to mention the number of local witnesses who that weekend saw lights in the sky that were puzzling to them despite them not having the same unfamiliarity with the presence of the lighthouse.


It is also very consistent with the same kind of testimony that I have heard from other close encounter witnesses in locations where there is zero possibility that they were simply misidentifying a lighthouse.

Whilst I can agree with Ian on quite a few things about this case and that there are strong elements to it that are likely not to be UFO related, I do feel the core close encounter means we have to remain alert to the probability that not all of it has been explained.


edit on 3-1-2017 by Jayceedove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




......It has been suggested that in the past we perhaps wrongly presumed that astronomers possessed the skills needed to evaluate UFO reports (such as the hiring of Dr Hynek for project bluebook) but that the skill sets we really needed were in the field of psychology. I think there's some truth to that and sadly it's largely unrecognized....


I would say that to be able to assess differing, multiple UFO reports you need to be an expert in astronomy, astro-biology, avionics, optics, meteorology, propulsion, mechanics, photography, videography, physics, chemistry, history, radiography, metallurgy, acoustics, weaponry, psychology, the art of deception and many more disciplines that I can't think of at the moment. I don't think any one person on the planet has all the qualifications necessary.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Oh I agree Kev



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jayceedove

That is such a well thought out post and, I think, makes a great summarization of this case!


Seeing all that written up in one post like that makes me wonder if the "core encounter" might well have been some sort of military experiment, with all the 'noise' and obfuscation purposely thrown in to create (and maintain) as much cover as possible for the 'operation'...

Such a scenario also fits in with Burroughs having been granted compensation for his subsequent medical problems.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Jayceedove

A pleasure to read you again!

I have a few questions that you might be able to answer:

1) Did the base(s) run on 110v or uk 240/250v?
2) Did you ever interview Bonnie Tamplin?
3) Can you point me to any research on Cold Witness
4) Is 'A Private Property' totallly fictional or could there be some truth to psycotronjc phenomena being amplified by oth radar?

Happy new year!



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ianrid
a reply to: GovernmentSauce

I would be interested to know your take on why the US DoD withheld Burroughs' medical records - a practice for those working on classified projects, when Burroughs never knowingly worked on such; and also why they have decided to pay out disability benefits to him in an admittance that his health issues have arisen from his line of work, when his work history does not appear to suggest that he would have been in danger of receiving such issues.

I have no idea why they would withhold records, but there was a huge cock-up in the veterans administration for years that affected not just him but many others — there’s even a big Wikipedia page about it
en.wikipedia.org...
So it’s wrong to think that he was in some way singled out.

Also, the payout does not imply that the USAF admitted his health problems were due to his Air Force service. They simply paid up as it was quicker and easier than arguing. I’m sure you know how that works. While it’s possible that his health problems could have arisen from his time in the USAF, I see no reason to link them with Rendlesham — why him and not all the others who were out there?

Ian



Apologies, Ian - I'm not sure why you think I have 'singled out' Burroughs as some kind of victim of the VHA here? Far from it. I can see nothing here linking the scandal of delays of treatment and the false recording of patient records by hospital staff in the VHA to the circumstances involving Burroughs. To re-state my point, it appears as though the medical records have been intentionally withheld as they have not been made accessible by either standard requests by Burroughs or FOIA requests; this is a practice common for those who have worked on the most covert operations, when Burroughs has not worked in such environments.

As for the comment about the disability payment not representing that the injuries occurred during active service, that is in fact exactly what they do represent. These payments are made only in circumstances whereby certain medical conditions are experienced by the sufferer which are most likely to have arisen as a result of the conditions provided by the employer.

To be honest, I am very surprised by your comment about the USAF wishing to 'pay up and avoid argument' as this does not appear to fit the historical record regarding US military compensation programmes. The Atomic Veterans tested upon in the 50s, for example, were only entitled to compensation upon the passing of the Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensations Act of 1988; those experimented upon under Project MKUltra in the 50s received compensation only under individual suits filed (and in some cases only successfully won after Supreme Court rulings) in the 70s, 80s and 90s; and I understand that there are still ongoing efforts to obtain compensation for the testing on soldiers during the first Gulf War. This does not appear to reconcile with your suggestion that a decision was made in this instance to accept a payout to an indivdual merely to avoid an argument, especially if your assumption that the USAF had absolutely nothing to do with Burroughs' illness is correct.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: GovernmentSauce

Just to add, ATS' Kit Green stated the medical records were classified and he was only able to communicate to the medical staff what they needed to know. Without that, I think Ian's response would be reasonable. However considering Kit's involvement I think we can assume there is something more to John's injuries.

Oddly Warren, although largely discredited, often spoke of Burroughs climbing on the craft. Halt confirmed this in Skycrash although it's never since been mentioned. Bustinza talks about John walking into the light of the craft and disappearing.

That is from early on, so we are left with only a few choices

- A genuine misunderstanding
- A rumour created and spread to hide the true cause of John's injuries
- something that happened that John has no memory of.

Now consider who the early sources for the climbing the craft / light field are and then consider which option seems most likely to you...



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83




Just to add, ATS' Kit Green stated the medical records were classified and he was only able to communicate to the medical staff what they needed to know. Without that, I think Ian's response would be reasonable. However considering Kit's involvement I think we can assume there is something more to John's injuries..............


Yes there is more to John's injuries. According to John he has a letter from the British MoD confirming that a weapon was developed from what he (and others) encountered in Rendlesham Forest.

This was actually stated way back in March of 2016 in discussion with Kevin Randle



.......I got them to admit through FOIA that they developed a weapon off of what we encountered in Rendlehsam Forest. I actually have it in writing that they were able to develop within Condign and stuff from the phenomenon itself. They were able to use technology and develop a weapon. ...Most of it was blacked out under a patent through defence companies. But they did admit they developed a weapon off of this.

And then they sectioned me....and said there will be no further correspondence with you until we release all these documents.....Now we are up to nearly the 3 year mark after that....

Full source : KGRA Radio (may require login?). About 84 mins into the broadcast. (Note this approx a 100 mb download)



However for those who want to hear the relevant snippet here is the relevant couple of minutes : Link to sound bite

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who are also following the thread for serious information may also find this interview with Chuck De Caro and Colonel Charles Halt of interest : Link to interview

edit on 4/1/17 by mirageman because: fixed link



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
I would say that to be able to assess differing, multiple UFO reports you need to be an expert in astronomy, astro-biology, avionics, optics, meteorology, propulsion, mechanics, photography, videography, physics, chemistry, history, radiography, metallurgy, acoustics, weaponry, psychology, the art of deception and many more disciplines that I can't think of at the moment. I don't think any one person on the planet has all the qualifications necessary.
Maybe the panel idea for studying UFOs makes more sense than a single researcher, though I don't know if they ever got all the right skill sets of all the panel members in the past because psychology seems to be under-represented, but yes multiple skills can be required, I agree.


originally posted by: mirageman
Yes there is more to John's injuries. According to John he has a letter from the British MoD confirming that a weapon was developed from what he (and others) encountered in Rendlesham Forest.
Has he shared a copy of it? If not, am I allowed to be skeptical about what it actually says?


.......I got them to admit through FOIA that they developed a weapon off of what we encountered in Rendlehsam Forest. I actually have it in writing...
OK then, let's see what you have in writing, John. Where is it?



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




I got them to admit through FOIA that they developed a weapon off of what we encountered in Rendlehsam Forest. I actually have it in writing...


OK then, let's see what you have in writing, John. Where is it?



I haven't seen anything out there Arby. I'm surprised no one picked up on this interview before me (it's a good ten months old). Maybe no one was paying attention?

If you listen to that segment of the interview in full, as I know everyone reading the thread will
, the discussion is about Project Condign and also the remaining unreleased "UFO Policy" documents. John Burroughs is talking about how the UK MoD have been promising to release these documents for three years. He's correct and they have been discussed previously in the thread.

Of course the fact that he is also stating that he has a letter from the MoD confirming weapons technology was developed off the back of the Rendlesham case and (to my knowledge) has not released it seems somewhat ironic doesn't it?

Although in fairness maybe there are reasons we don't know of that prevent any such disclosure of this letter. Maybe it was enforced as part of the VA settlement?



edit on 5/1/17 by mirageman because: corrections



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Apparently the withheld documents that are supposed to be declassified have unusual department classifications that give some hint to what might have been going on.

It sounds like John has been doing some good work - and this letter would fit with him calling the Haunted Skies authors 'tin soldiers' according to the Halt Perspective!

Effectively he told them that when he releases his book they will be forced to do a rewrite!



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Yes. There must be something in those documents that remain unreleased for the MoD to delay them time after time. Some one is nervous in Whitehall.

So despite all the sarcastic and jokey comments in this thread over the years I do applaud John for his work in finding that those documents existed and putting in the FOI requests. I do think he genuinely wants to resolve the case and will go wherever that leads him. He even puts out a weekly radio show on the UFO subject. So maybe all this stuff will come out once the MoD files are released as well. Perhaps then the jigsaw puzzle will have a clearer picture?

I am just surprised that no one else picked up on the comment about the "weapon developed" from what was encountered in Rendlesham Forest in the past ten months.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Perhaps the interview video I posted a few back about the Heat tolerant plastic is related in some way?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Hi everyone sorry been AWOL. Lots going on. You have probably heard Nick Pope has withdrawn his support of Left at East Gate and that there is now a fart bubble from the gary heseltine camp, how very dare we etc. Anyway i have been saying for months. Get everything authenticated, take me to court, whichever to end this. Nothing happened apart from more name calling accusations etc.

One person is going to prove me wrong by proving the photos i produced are fake and faked by myself.. By all means, prove they are fake, warren says they are real! only crazy people are commenting on the UFO Truth conference page. Looks great. i have a new title, very clever and imaginative. Miss Bitch. Awesome.

Well anyway after a while we got fed up of listening to the same old BS and we have created a gofundme account to raise the monies necessary for an independent professional forensic handwriting expert to go over his so called service records in comparison to his many publicly posted examples of his own handwriting.

Someone asked if i could clear up the mystery of the photos and who might be generating them, well unfortunately I can't answer that. However, i recently bought a phone after not having one for the best part of a year, the apps available on there are really quite good, then if you turn the image black and white, it hides a lot.

One thing i have noticed is that the photo in Barry Greenwoods notes is a colour photograph yet the image presented with the A10 and UFO is black and white so it definitely is NOT the original image.

I also noticed that at the bottom of the drawing of the entities he said he saw during the incident, drawn in 83 under the guise of art Wallace for the book Clear Intent has the wording. "entities seen in Rendlesham forest by 'art wallace' seen 30th December 1980. 30th!!!!!!!!!! That was a Tuesday and the day after he went to Axe records to haggle with people who weren't even there because it was a Sunday and all shops were shut.



Anyway... If you fancy chipping in this is the link www.gofundme.com...





posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Oh just a question for anyone who might know this...

if a person never completed training and had never actually served as a qualified bona fide officer of whatever description. Would there actually be any service records? if you had only gone through basic, been kicked out or never finished basic for whatever reason. What would an application for them produce?

Thanks in advance



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join