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: 137
87
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
There are certain things can be gleaned to a keen observer. Oh and there's only 23 days to go until the release of the the ebook.



We'll see what lies where after that I guess.
If that's anything like "Sex, lies, and video tape", which was lauded as "An edgy, intense comedy", it might be pretty good, but they would have to make the ebook into a movie to have the same impact on moviegoers.




posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman



We'll see what lies where after that I guess.


Glad to hear it’s finally finished. You already have at least one buyer!

Hope you didn’t forget the Extraction … of coordinates from the internet that is. The owners of sacred-destinations.com will welcome a few more visitors to browse through their COO’DINATES…
And then there is the date issue of course, another strong indication that this whole thing is just a lie…



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101


And then there is the date issue of course, another strong indication that this whole thing is just a lie…


Something to ponder. Would Penniston take the risk to write a book, go to the troubles
he is, for something which is "fake". Think about this.



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

The simple answer is "Yes". The motivations for doing so are to be considered carefully.

Examples of the individual's "confusion" over what happened taken from his statement to Omni magazine




"I had my notebook and camera while I was out there, so I began taking notes.

This is what I wrote:

Triangular in shape. The top portion is producing mainly white light, which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light peers out the bottom. At the left side center is a bluish light, and on the other side, red. The lights seem to be molded as part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually molding into the fabric of the craft. ....

Linky : web archive



The wonderful scribble about "Very Warm to Touch"

Maybe it's a little white lie? But such descriptions are nowhere to be seen in that conveniently loose leaf notebook. Just like the binary codes at one time! Maybe they will eventually turn up like the binary did. But there is only so long you can keep checking what people say about your story and then adjust it to survive.



Why was it necessary to write those binary codes in it as well? Something that could have him ejected from the Air Force if we are to believe the more recent historical adjustments to the story. But nope best to use that notebook. Nothing else at hand.

There is plenty more to come to douse the inferno in his burning breeches. Remember the Roswell slides? Theft at Eastgate? The Penniston Prevarication draws ever closer.



edit on 10/3/17 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Mar, 10 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   


But nope best to use that notebook. Nothing else at hand.
a reply to: mirageman

Very handy.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
Although there appears to be a number of other things going on I am aware of I'm almost done with this Rendle'sham for now. Here's a video that hasn't been posted on here. Although I do so with an air of slight boredom.



There are certain things can be gleaned to a keen observer. Oh and there's only 23 days to go until the release of the the ebook.



We'll see what lies where after that I guess.
. This book looks hilarious. Sounds like an ebook Robbins would do- to discredit or disinform is ridiculous. None of you were there. All you think you know is speculation. It's time this site puts credible information out or it shuts down. This book is a joke.
edit on 11-3-2017 by Sedonabird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Sedonabird




It's time this site puts credible information out or it shuts down.


What do you consider to be credible information?



edit on 11-3-2017 by Baablacksheep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: Sedonabird







None of you were there. All you think you know is speculation.


You: I don't know what occurred and I wasn't there. I can only reply to how things appear from an outsider looking in .




It's time this site puts credible information out or it shuts down.


What do you consider to be credible information?
Facts... reliable research based facts...those who had first hand experience ...
Too many people trying to write themselves into it...too many wannabes, opportunist and entertainers






posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sedonabird

The comment above was removed , it was not relevant and was in reference to Sacha.

You said


None of you were there.


How could you possibly know this? Is it possible that others on this ATS
site/string may well of been present? That would be an assumption.

I will ask again. Can you provide information which you consider to be credible,
without quoting Pennistons "lines".



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: Sedonabird

The comment above was removed , it was not relevant and was in reference to Sacha.

You said


None of you were there.


How could you possibly know this? Is it possible that others on this ATS
site/string may well of been present? That would be an assumption.

I will ask again. Can you provide information which you consider to be credible,
without quoting Pennistons "lines".

Two points
If anyone had been present , they would have spoken out by now .
Also, if they had been there , they wouldn't be on here



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sedonabird
Two points
If anyone had been present , they would have spoken out by now .
Also, if they had been there , they wouldn't be on here
Being there might help but it doesn't mean you can take what the eyewitness described at face value, because as Jenny Randles noted there's too much room for misinterpretation by an eyewitness.

All of the eyewitnesses who drew these drawings think they accurately drew what they saw, and maybe so does Jim Penniston in the drawing on this original witness statement, but I don't have to have been at either location to have plenty of room for doubt about all the aforementioned drawings, since I have a pretty good idea of what the other witnesses saw in both events from their different witness statements, which are more in line with the actual known stimuli present at each location.

www.jamesoberg.com...


I don't think any of the witnesses who drew those objects are lying or making things up and on Jim Penniston's original witness statement could be an accurate reflection of what he thought he saw, but both these cases are not single witness incidents and the evidence from other witnesses and facts must be considered to make a determination of what happened. If you want to read that link you can learn what the witnesses actually saw in the skies above Kiev and it wasn't the objects they drew in these drawings. Even the witnesses that actually see an event can underestimate their own ability for misperception, and they will often deny it even when the evidence for misperception is overwhelming as it is in these cases.

Sometimes people misperceive things. It's a fact and it's part of the way we humans are designed. Misperceiving something doesn't mean there is anything wrong with us, it's in our DNA to do so, but denying that we can misperceive things tends to be more of a problem. Scientists and researchers know this happens but the average person places far more weight on the accuracy of their senses than is justified by research.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sedonabird
None of you were there. It's time this site puts credible information out or it shuts down. This book is a joke.


You should not judge a book by its cover.
I think all your questions will be answered, just be patient. You’ll see that MM has done an excellent job.

Being there and telling the truth about it are two entirely different things. You seem to think that one implies the other.

But what about the other person who was there with Jim? His story is completely consistent with that of everyone else who was involved, including Jim’s own original witness statement.




“Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated.”

“We came upon whatever it was and only were close to it briefly. Jim did say he felt it was some kind of object. His statement also stated how close we got to it.”

“I believe the notebook and other drawings came later. As far as him touching something he was the closest but I did not see him touch anything.”

“His story has changed and I am not sure why. He has told me since he went under hypnosis his memory of the event has changed. Whatever we came upon departed as we got close to it “


John Burroughs (old RFI forum)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Sedonabird

...
'
If you look at all the original witness statements they seem to paint a fairly consistent picture. Christmas Day 1980. Three wise men in a foreign land following the light and never quite getting close enough to ascertain exactly what it was. Then getting called back to base.

But once Penniston was able to 'release' the pages of his loose leaf notebook the date of the encounter clearly states the 27th Dec 1980. So was he actually out there on the second night making notes, taking photos, making sketches, touching something he perhaps shouldn't have done then? And not the night with Ed and John?

Because otherwise it seems there was a cover-up put in place and all parties on that first night are complicit in it to this day. Except for Jim.


The picture (above) of the page of Penniston's notebook shows the date as "27 Dec 1980" and the time "12.20". Both conflict with the date/time given consistently (where they occur) in the original witness statements. The Halt Memo, of course, similarly gets the date wrong as 27 December, although not the time which is correct at 03:00 for the start of events.

No 'cover-up' needed. On internal evidence alone, Penniston's date here merely shows that this 'notebook', as it was shown for the SciFi Channel's 2003 documentary UFO Invasion at Rendlesham, was fabricated after the release of the Halt Memo under FOIA in mid-1983, but before the re-appearance of the original witness statements in late 1997. There are countless other examples of Penniston adjusting his 'evidence' to fit with what he thinks everyone else knows or is willing to accept at the time he produces it (e.g, 'Hy-Brasil', not 'Woodbridge').

The earlier time is, of course, merely required to buy himself the time to spend his 45 minutes 'writing' in the notebook in the first place.

Whatever happened to the simple art of critically evaluating artefacts in a historical reconstruction of events that either happened or they didn't?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Sometimes people misperceive things. It's a fact and it's part of the way we humans are designed. Misperceiving something doesn't mean there is anything wrong with us, it's in our DNA to do so, but denying that we can misperceive things tends to be more of a problem. Scientists and researchers know this happens but the average person places far more weight on the accuracy of their senses than is justified by research.


Yes, the psychology of witnesses is all important here. In the first instance, there is very often an unconscious blurring between what was actually seen and what was merely inferred. The latter is highly dependent upon whatever preconceptions we bring to the act of witnessing itself. Then there is the strong tendency, from our need to be able to reason what we have just witnessed - to make sense of it - towards a reshaping of our memory of the experience over time. This, again, is a process which falls prey to our preconceptions, or 'cognitive biases'.

If you look at and compare the descriptions, from their original statements, as to what was actually seen in the woods that first night, there is actually a lot of commonality between what Burroughs reports and what Penniston describes. This is evident in the drawings they each produced for their early reports, with Burroughs drawing a pattern of lights, as:



and Penniston producing:



As Penniston wrote in his statement:



The object was producing red and blue light. The blue light was steady and projecting under the object. It was lighting up the area directly under [extending] a meter or two out. ... it was [definitely] mechanical in nature. (Emphasis added.)


[Note how, in the above extract, the idea of "an object" comes before the inference of it being "mechanical in nature." However, there is nothing in any account to suggest anything other than that its 'mechanical' nature is inferred from perceived motion (under intelligent control?). But lights (as emissions) move also. Hence, Penniston's "mechanical in nature" is wholly dependent upon his cognitive bias towards it having been "an object."]

The differences between these two sketches are easily within what would be expected based on the psychology of witnesses to a common event. Only, Penniston appears to have a strong cognitive bias for what he thinks he has seen and goes on to infer that there was an object behind the lights. (This is greatly more plausible than that there was an object and Burroughs missed it.)

Only, Penniston then starts to confabulate, and as early as the 29 December 1980 (if not sooner), his recollection starts spitting out stuff like this:



Of course, the legacy we have today pretty much stems directly from the fact that, as the senior officer of the three on-the-spot witnesses, it was Penniston's already morphing account that Halt accepted and emphasised in his memo of 13 January.



The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metalic in appearance and triangular in shape... (Emphasis added).


But this was not what "the individuals reported," nor is it what Penniston actually observed.

So, basically (and understandably), when Penniston next defends his testimony with "we were trained observers out there," don't be fooled into thinking that even US Airmen are immune to the psychology of witness bias, error and confabulation. And further, if Halt had have been fair to all that was (presumably) reported to him, we would have only ever been discussing 'strange lights in the forest' and not this 'craft from the future' nonsense.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Cognitive Bias
In the forward to Georgina Bruni's book You Can't Tell the People, Nick Pope informs us his task at the MoD (1991-4) was:



...to evaluate the several hundred UFO sightings reported to the MOD each year and to determine whether there was evidence of any threat to the defence of the United Kingdom.


The MoD - which is bigger than just Pope - has always maintained otherwise.

Anyway, Pope then goes on to tells us how he set about doing this, and what the outcome was in the majority of cases:



Each sighting was carefully investigated and I was able to determine that somewhere between ninety and ninety-five per cent could be attributed to misidentification of ordinary objects or phenomena.


This seems fair enough. 'Case closed' on a 0.9-0.95 proportion of all reported sightings. But what about the remaining 0.05-0.1 of all cases?



There remained, however, a hard core of sightings that defied conventional explanation and involved what appeared to be structured craft of unknown origin, capable of manoeuvres and speeds beyond the abilities of anything in our inventory... (Emphasis added.)


A few examples of these are then given, with a noted bias towards sightings reported by "police officers, airline pilots and military personnel." (I'm none of them, so don't ever ask me what I saw.) Then, in regard to his purported mission at the MoD - the big question as to whether the 'UFO Phenomenon' is of "defence significance" or not - Pope draws the astounding conclusion that:



Such incidents led me to speak out publicly about the UFO phenomenon and warn that there were serious defence and national-security issues at stake, given that our sophisticated air-defence network was being routinely penetrated by these unidentified craft. (Emphasis added.)


Now there's a leap of logic, indeed! It goes something like this:

I, Nick Pope, receive several hundred alleged sightings (alleged, mind you) of some or other UFO - or 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' (UAP), because that's all they are at this stage: it is important to challenge the unfounded association of UFO = "unidentified craft." I work diligently, and - to the best of my ability - find that I can find conventional explanations for the vast majority of them, but not all of them. Therefore, those that remain are actually unidentified craft penetrating our "sophisticated air-defence network".

And here's the 'cognitive bias', because what happened to the "I just wasn't able to explain this one" group, or the "He/she was mistaken/drunk/lying/excitable/etc." group? What's with this whole 'default position' thing? - If I, Nick Pope, can't explain it conventionally, then it must be what it says it is?

Surely, setting aside all biases towards wanting such 'craft' to exist - and, let's not forget, in the utter, total and complete absence of any definite 'proof' as to their existence - the default position should be "I don't know what that one is."

Because that's the whole problem - this unfounded limitation put upon 'explanation' as being required to fit with "ordinary objects or phenomena." Our knowledge is daily extended with the observation and classification of things outside our current familiarity with "ordinary objects or phenomena." So, where's the group of "Haven't classified it yet, but it's a craft, definitely. Want to come see? It's in my garage."

Cognitive bias is, quite literally, a carte blanche. Anything can be 'true' if you want it to be true. But things are 'true' when they are proven to be so, not by default. Things exist or are known to have occurred when they are unquestionably, categorically and indisputably shown to be so.

Pope refers to sightings "correlated by photographs, videos or radar tapes." But the truth is, very few of these would have arrived at his desk, and the first two can be spectacularly faked, the third show 'false positives'. So it comes down, in the end, to witness testimony. And too much weight, by far, is given in the world of UFOlogy to the good old "It's so because he/she says it happened like that."

The primary textual evidence in the case of the RFI (including the Halt Tape) shows a host of guys in the forest encountering "strange lights." Still don't know what the "blue & red" ones were, but Penniston went a bit further than Burroughs in making reference to these forming a "mechanical object." So, s#@t, now we've got an object in the woods, because Penniston said so. (And certainly Halt, in his memo, gave special favour to Penniston's testimony over that of the others, where no such 'object' is mentioned.) Only, then we hear that this object is under intelligent control, because Penniston says it had some glyphs on it and it communicated a message to him, so that must be true. But not just that, it's now a craft and it's from our future and it's "us," because Penniston says that's what the communication said. And now we've got these "us" sitting somewhere back in their present going "Thirty years it took to get that damn binary decoded. Next time, guys, let's give the message to someone who's heard of binary before." (Although, of course, this'll actually be said in 1's and 0's and run through their portable binary-to-ASCII-to-Esperanto decoders.) And ... well, I'm bored now ...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

The answers to these are illuminating, if you know the answers.

Which TV executive paid for Burrough's hypnosis?
Why did he have no intention of airing it in UFO Coverup Live?
What was this executive told in the middle of a lake that scared him?
Why was UFO Live! produced by a PR Agency who sometimes worked for the 'agency'?
Why was Robert Emenegger of 'UFOS: Past, Present and Future' involved in this PR Agency?
Why was one guest connected to the production team at Disney - 'Alien Encounters?'
edit on 12-3-2017 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   


The answers to these are illuminating, if you know the answers.

"If" you know the answers.


Which TV executive paid for Burrough's hypnosis?


Perhaps go a bit deeper with that one.


Text



Why was Robert Emenegger of 'UFOS: Past, Present and Future' involved in this PR Agency?


Why indeed.....

I see the last part of your post was removed.

It was an interesting read.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

I went somewhat off topic.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
On Nick Pope's website, under Latest News, there is some blurb for his 2014 book Encounter in Rendlesham Forest which still contains the following unfounded claims about the incident:



The UFO was tracked on radar, and physical evidence was present at the landing site including indentations in the frozen ground where the UFO had landed, scorch marks on the sides on the trees facing the landing site, and radiation levels subsequently assessed by the MoD's Defence Intelligence Staff as being "significantly higher than the average background."


What would it actually take for lessons to be learnt and to move on? Not one of these four statements has any merit as evidence, and three are demonstrably false.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join