It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 130
<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 08:39 PM

originally posted by: ctj83
If you don't mind, which are you stating?

A) Are you saying you don't believe the statements of Springer, Kit Green, John Burroughs, Frascogna & Frascongna that that Kit advised Burrough's surgeons (funded by the VA's admission of disability based on the RFI incident) after seeing John's classified medical records and his medical bills were accepted by the VA? Meaning they have lied?


B Are you saying that you accept that the Springer, Kit et all have honestly reported that the VA has accepted the claim, that Dr Green saw the classified records and that they indicated the frequency range of the non ionising radiation causing the injuries? You, however, discount anything beyond that?
You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway. If we take Kit Green's comments at face value then John Burroughs was exposed to radiation at some point in his career, but I see no link to Rendlesham Forest and the questions Ian asked about why nobody else with John Burroughs in Rendlesham Forest experienced the same symptoms suggests he's thinking along the same lines as me that no link to Rendlesham forest has been established for the source of his injuries.

edit on 2017116 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I agree with everything you posted except for one thing, Kit would be addressed as Dr. Green in polite company, which is exactly the type of "company" I take you as. ;-)

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:38 PM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's a great question and one, IMHO, I presume we'll never get a straight answer on until/unless whatever was in that forest that fateful night(s) gets declassified completely...

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:40 PM
a reply to: Springer

It's good to know that the Elite are not without fear... classified even

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:41 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

An interesting point, although I think your question is subtly different to Ian's.

Is there hard proof? No? Remember, the unusual nature of John's injuries are not up for debate (unless you want to go VERY deep down the rabbit hole.

It simply becomes a question of Is it more likely that his NIEMR injuries occurred when Condign, Dr Green, Penniston etc claim they did. Or is it more likely they occurred at another point? If the injuries occurred at another point the RFI seems like a very convenient and statistically unlikely coincidence. It is more likely to be a cover for the real source of John (and Jim's) injuries.

I think you are either forgetting about or discounting Project Condign. I'll not quote everything, but elsewhere non-ionising radiation from UAPs is mentioned to cause damaged (in a non linear fashion I believe) to biological tissue.

Project Condign.

“The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases which remain unreported. It is clear that the recipients of these effects are not aware that their behaviour/perception of what they are observing is being modified” (Volume 2, Working Paper 1, Annex F, page F-4, para 13).

Dr Kit Green on ATS

# 2 ... What caused his injuries (What caused his injuries (and several others present over the encounter) with the odd Air Form that emitted the Broad Band NIEMR? ) with the odd Air Form that emitted the Broad Band NIEMR?

NIEMR = Non Ionising Electromagnetic Radiation. The same type as identified in Project Condign.

Dr Kit Green on ATS

Q # 2 Broad-band Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation caused the injuries. The RF is identified in a dozen classified and a half-dozen unclassified studies on cardiological and neurological injuries ... not thousands of reports. Very, very few physicians even care about this arcane area of research.

You'll find I posted one of the papers that Kit refers to, a while back on ATS. - 'The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC' which is a US Navy report from the late 70s / early 1980s

Although it breaks my understanding of physics, what the USSR were doing fed into US research into Terrahertz radiation and Microwave radiation and possibly the range of overlap between. By using various wave forms (e.g. a square wave) or Pulse Width Modulation, according to the paper I shared, it is possible for very narrow bands of radiation to simulate / emulate or trigger a response from biological tissues, as if it had undergone various biological processes.

Now, does the research paper I found fit what Dr Green was referring to? Almost certainly? Does it mean that it was present at Bentwaters? No.

If you'll indulge me, I'll just run back over this and explain why my post might not have been saying quite what you thought and that you appear not to be considering all that has been said.

- Condign speaks of UAP radiation affecting minds and biological tissue. It is inherently non ionising and non liner in nature

- (Fun Fact) Cobra Mist / Cold Witness / The Duga all transmitted non ionising radiation. Some have claimed that experiments were conducted repurposing OTH Radar into a DEW to use non ionising radiation to affect humans. This is very conspiratorial and I generally dismiss it. However, watch "The WoodPecker" - a documentary from last year about the Duga and you can here and ex KGB offer talk about the mind altering properties of the Duga. Personally, I don't believe it ever worked... but still interesting.

- Non Ionising radiation has caused John's heart damage. (the fact it was the inner leaf points to this being a very non standard case of mitral valve damage)

- Dr Green, on ATS, in his wording of 'Question 1' states that John and others were injured by non-ionising radiation from the 'encounter' in Rendlesham.

- John is not the only one injured. Jim was also injured in a similar way, he simply chooses not to be public about it. I believe, but am not certain that is he is pursuing a similar claim.

My question to Ian was not if Ian, or you, believes that John encountered a UAP that injured him with NIEMR, but rather do you believe Dr Green and the others are giving us an honest assessment that the injuries were caused by the 'encounter' and were due to NEIMR. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

So to ask you a question:

Do you believe that:
- The NIEMR reference to UAPs in Rendlesham
- Dr Green referring to NEIMR radiation inuring John
- Dr Green references the NEIMR injuries being caused by an encounter with an odd air form at Rendlesham ("What caused his injuries (What caused his injuries (and several others present over the encounter) with the odd Air Form that emitted the Broad Band NIEMR? "

Constitute no intentionally implied link, or a highly suggestive, if not fully established link to John?

There are numerous documents supporting late 1970s / early 1980s research into the unusual biological results of exposure to terrahertz NIEMR. John was injured at some point by NIEMR. The Condign report clearly states this was part of the RFI. Dr Green has clearly stated here that the NIEMR exposure was due to an encounter with a NIEMR emitting odd 'Air Form' at Rendlesham.

What's more likely?
- Something injured John with NIEMR not during the RFI. Dr Green, Condign etc are wrong in stating the it did
- Something injured John with NIEMR during the RFI. Dr Green, Condign etc are correct.

Obviously there is no hard proof, but there are numerous papers that make one the more likely option. The alternative is strongly suggestive of an attempt to blame the RFI for the incident, which is also interesting.
edit on 17-1-2017 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:57 AM
a reply to: Springer

In my opinion, at this stage, Springer, I believe that the whole UFO 'woo' factor is throwing people off. I find it more useful to forget about 'aliens' - as there are many other options for what could have been encountered. The question then becomes 'was John injured by NIEMR at RFI?'.

A quick way to turn this on itself

In the UK, we have many 'no win, no fee' lawyers who will sue employers at the drop of a hat for workplace injuries. Would they be interested in the following case:

- In late 1980 a man and several colleagues were injured by a workplace hazard emitting an unusual form of radiation (NIEMR)
- Currently this man has undergone surgery and treatment successfully because the medical team were made aware of his injuries (unusual mitral valve damage on the inner not outer leaf) being due to NIEMR, which is reference in his classified medical records.
- A few years after the alleged incident a partner of his employer produced a report directly referencing the exposure at his workplace, when he stated to NIEMR. This is before the man made his claim
- Another department of his employers, produced a report during the same time frame 'The LIC In Electromagnetic Spectrum' referencing the non classical effects of NIEMR on biological tissue

Would any legal team consider it likely that the fact his employers have produced numerous papers on this unusual type of radiation and injury, was purely by coincidence?

Or, would the direct and indirect references to NIEMR, the encounter at RFI being the source of the exposure, and numerous employees testimony be enough to pursue a legal case?

I just feel that its swimming against the tide, probability and Occams razor to say

"john was injured by NIEMR, but papers produces by his employers, their strategic partners stating that NIEMR exposure likely occurred at RFI and that they conducted research during, before, and after the RFI into the precise effects John and others suffered are of NIEMR are a complete coincidence and incorrect"

Dr Green seems to have directly stated on ATS he believes that the exposure that injured John occurred at Rendlesham with a emitter of NIEMR in the form of an 'odd aeroflorm'. I don't think we are going to get hard proof any time soon, but the balance of probability suggests it was at RFI.
edit on 17-1-2017 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 06:27 AM

originally posted by: ctj83
Dr Kit Green on ATS

"# 2 ... What caused his injuries (What caused his injuries (and several others present over the encounter) with the odd Air Form that emitted the Broad Band NIEMR? )

- Dr Green, on ATS, in his wording of 'Question 1' states that John and others were injured by non-ionising radiation from the 'encounter' in Rendlesham.
No, he doesn't. Read your own citation, he is asking speculative questions which is completely different than making statements. While they are valid questions, they are questions, and not statements. Green seems to be operating under the assumption of an "odd air form" which is a presumption of facts not in evidence as far as my reading of the witness statements and events go. When Burroughs says he followed the lights and ended up looking at the lighthouse but he didn't think the lighthouse was making the lights he was following I don't really understand his logic at all.

So I have no objections at all to the questions Kit Green is asking however they are not only speculative but based on some unproven assumptions. I think they are valid questions but for you to infer his statements are more than speculation is a gross misrepresentation. Sentences ending in question marks are questions, not statements.

edit on 2017117 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:49 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply, I think you are right that it is speculation - I was wrong to say 'state'.

Personally I think that there is value in what Dr Green believes and it was not my intention to say he 'knows'. It's certainly a question on his part.

However you are right, he doesn't state the encounter was the source of the exposure. He states that the injuries were consistent with NIEMR exposure, not the encounter. I shouldn't have written that as one sentence and in my zeal to prove a point I didn't. Your right to point that out and I appreciate it and apologise.

does misrepresent what Dr Green speculates versus states as fact. Apologies to Dr Green!

To clarify your position in light of this, I'd be interested to know if these roughly match your thoughts.

  1. That John was injured by NIEMR exposure?
  2. That Dr Green and others speculate this exposure could have been during the RFI?
  3. That John's treament was conducted successfully based on this speculation?
  4. That there is no proof (which I agree with) that this exposure occurred during the RFI?

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:15 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hello again Arby. I would say that I see it like this.

There is no definitive confirmation that John Burroughs was injured on the 25th - 28th December during his off base excursions. Burroughs has stated that is the case. Colonel Halt and General Williams also wrote to the US Veteran's Association (VA) confirming that Burroughs (and Penniston) were involved in the incident and suffering because of their time at Bentwaters (both are copied in Halt's new book). The Condign report was also used as leverage to win the case if we are to believe Burroughs.

The crux of the matter is that a number of Senators (including John McCain) had to use their influence to get John Burroughs' (and from what I understand Jim Penniston's) medical records from their time at Bentwaters released so they could receive treatment. They even took it as high as President Obama. As Kit Green stated, even he did not have the clearance to view them all. So not all of the files were released even now. Burroughs even claims a weapon was created off the back of the studies of his case!

So to re-iterate my view on it. :

If the injuries weren't sustained during the Rendlesham incident then why does the case made to the VA seem to revolve around it? At least of what we know of that is in the public domain.

The VA settled up with John as we know. But if the Rendlesham incident plays no significance at all in Burroughs' injuries then what is the real story behind it all and why did the VA choose to settle up?

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:40 PM
Jim Penniston, in a CBS Rendlesham Roundtable 2 radio show (June 2010), seemed to believe his symptoms began about a month after the incident.

Jim Penniston:

Within a month after the incident I started to develop inner ear problems, that was unexplainable to the people at the base.

So I went in for treatment. They said, "You know for some reason you developed in a period of about 3 weeks Ménière's disease."

I said, "You're kidding?" They said no. So there's a terrible balance issue because of that.

I was concerned whether or not I would be able to stay as a security policeman at that time, but they were doing treatments at the time.

... I'm currently receiving disability for the hearing loss and the Ménière's.

... There are other people out there who were also out on the 2nd night [3rd?] that I've also discussed this with that have serious medical problems too. ... Nick (Pope) floored me in Washington DC working for the National Press Club in 2007 when he tells me about this communique about the radiation levels and how much higher they were and the fact that what they did find, the British kept it to themselves.

Nick Pope at this point clarifies that radiation levels were "considerably more than background" and there was "no doubt that the radiation levels were significant."

John Burrough also weighs in:

One of the things that happened to me after the incident, I started having throat and ear problems. From there, also my gums and my mouth actually turned white. And, I kept getting sick.

when I went in one time for being sick, the doctor asked me, "What about your heart murmur?"

And the interesting thing is, you can't get in the Air Force if you have a heart murmur. They won't take you in.

So after the incident I developed a heart murmur--and it was a pretty good one. Shortly I'm probably going to have to have a bowel replacement.

I also had vision problems to include having to go down to Wilford Hall. And the doctor there, one of his questions was, "have you ever been exposed to radiation?"

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 12:52 PM
Just a quick heads up for anyone interested.

The unexplained with Howard Hughes podcast which I would recommend. Has some great guests, anyway the latest edition 284 is a conversation with Col. Halt. It only became available on iTunes today so should be hot off the press stuff although I haven't had chance to listen to it yet myself.

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: EasternRadar

Thanks for the heads up. Howard has been around a while and I remember him from his days working on a local radio station up here in the North West. For those who want to listen then here is a direct link to his show with Colonel Halt. You can stream or download the show for free :

The Unexplained with Howard Hughes - Guest Colonel Charles Halt

His home page also links to a host of interviews he has conducted in the past.

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:23 PM
a reply to: Defragmentor

The significance of the radiation readings in the forest have long been disputed. Here is Nick Pope commenting about them back in the mid-90s

Giles Cowling, who had originally confirmed the readings were significantly higher than background radiation, to Nick later reconsidered and said :

.......“In my original discussions with Mr Pope I did indeed state that the readings were around 10 times normal background levels, provided that the instrument was appropriate for measuring background radiation (at the time of our discussions he could not state what the instrument was), calibrated and being used/interpreted correctly. I share the NRPB view that the use of a high-range survey instruments to measure (accurately) environmental levels of radiation is somewhat questionable and this must throw some doubt on the validity of the data reported.................”

In the the book "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" NIck counters the comments again

Some skeptics in the UFO community have suggested that the radiation levels might not be as significant as the MoD suspected, arguing that the Geiger counter used was not appropriate for the task and even speculating that the dial might have been misread. I'm wary when ufologists start trying to second guess the measurements taken by the trained military personnel who were actually there, or questioning the contemporaneous scientific assessment.

Nevels used the equipment available to him (there being no such thing as a UFO radiation detector!) and the DIS assessment used the readings reported to the MoD. We can only use the data we have, not the data we'd like to have or think we should have had. That's the way science works.

In any case, such speculation misses the key point; the radiation levels peaked in the three indentations found where the craft was said to have landed. It's like using a metal detector and hearing a bleep; in a sense, it doesn't matter what make or model of metal detector is, or whether its dial reads 1 out of 10 or 8 out of 10; the key point is that it bleeped — that tells you there's something there!

Source: Nick Pope - Encounter in Rendlesham Forest

Make your own minds up on that one.

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I assume that was ionised radiation, as opposed to none ionised?

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 06:10 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Im presuming Nevels was using something like a Geiger counter...and those detect ionizing radiation
Namely alphas, betas and gammas.

An instrument like that cannot detect radio waves, microwaves, etc as they aren't ionizing (don't strip away electrons).

So that whole radiation level thing just confuses the topic of the effects of nonionizing radiation on human tissue.

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 07:05 AM
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Something that is engineered and pumps out dangerous levels of both boggles the mind. What were the the thinking? Goes against any sort of theory of an extraterrestrial craft unless they just rent them for the day or something?

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 08:19 AM
a reply to: ctj83 and
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Hypotheticaly thinking: what would it take to materialise and dematerialise something on a molecular and/or subatomic level?

In an article regarding AI posted in Kev's topic it was mentioned atomns could be theoretically moved around to create or change matter. Wouldn't doing this require and/or emit a certain type of energy?

I'm aware this is far out, but just curious.

Sorry if this is too much of a derail.

edit on 20-1-2017 by zeroPointOneQ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

That subject is too hypothetical IMHO for this particular thread.

But.. all it would take to materialize / dematerialize in a manner of speaking would be to control something like the higgs boson or the higgs field.. but that might well be thousands of years ahead of us in technology and/or might be a function of a naturally living (coherent energy) being.

Though you didn't ask.. I find it much more likely that some sort of military test or side effect was behind the non-ionizing radiation effect, if indeed the exposure happened at RFI.

Not that there couldn't also be "earth lights" involved as well (they might be attracted to such a test and have been seen in the area for hundreds of years).


posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:45 AM
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You're right given the factual nature. Let's leave it at that


posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: ctj83

After reading a few hundred or more high strangeness accounts, it's nearly impossible to credibly think that nuts and bolts craft are involved.

new topics

top topics

<< 127  128  129    131  132  133 >>

log in