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: 152
87
<< 149  150  151    153  154  155 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
The part about Dr. Green is compelling research is still going on, but all is still way open on what they did find. I find this intruiging since this kind of proves they still don't know (completely) what they are dealing with. Linked to RFI injuries (if true they are in this program), are they that much behind given they are still researching the effects of cold war weapons?
...
Correct me if I'm wrong here (insights more than welcome) since a few of you have more in depth knowledge on the subject.
Claims have been made that Burroughs sustained injuries in the Rendlesham Forest incident, but these claims of a linkage to RFI have never been substantiated that I have seen. From the publicly available information, Burroughs could have just as easily been injured 6 months after the Rendlesham forest incident in a location other than Rendlesham forest.

He was after all stationed at a base that by many accounts was illicitly storing nuclear weapons which of course could raise the possibility of exposure to radiation from such weapons and of course if the weapons were not supposed to be there this is not something the military would want to admit to, though it could just as easily have been exposure to some other kind of secret weapon on the base, if Burroughs was really injured during his assignment and I'm not completely convinced that the VA's settlement is an admission that he was as has been claimed.

Here's a comment from a researcher who has investigated this case, Dr David Clarke and I haven't seen anything to contradict this, but if you find any real EVIDENCE to the contrary let me know:

New Light on Rendlesham

There is no document that says the US Government or any other Government has ‘officially acknowledged’ (Burroughs) or any one else was irradiated by a UFO in Rendlesham forest or anywhere else.
If there was, I’d be expecting to read about this on the front page of the Washington Post, not on some Facebook page.
As part of their evidence to the VA, Burroughs (or his lawyer) submitted the suggestion from the Condign Report that “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 is no evidence that the VA took this into account in making their settlement.
Indeed, there is no reason that they should have taken it into account, since it is only speculation based on poor understanding of the case.


I've seen some speculation by Kit Green about a relationship to the Rendlesham Forest Incident, but it's obviously speculation, and my interpretation of his comments is that he isn't claiming otherwise. Dr. Green is asking questions that are valid questions, but we don't have the answers.

edit on 2017523 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on May, 23 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You might find this an interesting response from John Burroughs on his Facebook page.




There is a document that shows that project Condign was involved in my settlement with the VA. That document will be reveled in due time. What I can also report is this. In June Phenonmeno radio will be having on Annie Jacobsen who will be talking about her book Phenomena which goes into Dr Green work. Later in the month we will be having on the aide that worked on my case file at Senator McCain office to talk about what took place with my settlement.



So, "Where do we go from here". ?




posted on May, 23 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep




So, "Where do we go from here". ?




Let's see if that document materializes.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Dr Green is directly quoted by Jacobsen as running a a treatment group for UAP encounter survivors. Dr Green's research indicates that there are immunological changes and genetic difference as a result of such encounters, which are usually airborne phenomena.

Dr Green has also stated on ATS that the radiation John was exposed to was non-ionising and most likely in the terahertz range. Hence is was none nuclear.

Dr Green advised John's care provider on appropriate treatment based on this non-ionising radiation exposure.

Which leaves the following questions for me:

- If Dr Green is being accurate (over numerous posts and interviews) then John was exposed to something that Dr Green does not understand and is not a black project where did he encounter this if not the RFI?

- If there are genetic differences in experiencers (genomics of supernormality) are they hereditary or epigenetic?

- if John was sectioned due to being part of this UAP treatment group why did he suggest he could supply the RFI derived weapons document which would be restricted?



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

Dr Green is directly quoted by Jacobsen as running a a treatment group for UAP encounter survivors. Dr Green's research indicates that there are immunological changes and genetic difference as a result of such encounters, which are usually airborne phenomena.
Has Dr. Green actually published any research on this that we can read? If not it sounds like an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence to support it.


Dr Green has also stated on ATS that the radiation John was exposed to was non-ionising and most likely in the terahertz range. Hence is was none nuclear.
"most likely" infers he's speculating and doesn't really know, and "terahertz" could mean different things, but if he's using the term the same way wikipedia does it's a subset of the infrared bands of radiation. Wikipedia's "terahertz radiation" page defines it as having a frequency from 300 GHz to 3 THz, which is a subset of what Wikipedia calls Far-Infrared radiation.


Far-infrared radiation (FIR) is found on the wavelength spectrum at 15–1000 µm with a frequency range of 0.3–20 THz, and photon energy range of 1.2–83 meV. In these IR radiation bands, researchers have noted that the far-infrared radiation band "transfers energy purely in the form of heat which can be perceived by the thermoreceptors in human skin as radiant heat." They report that this radiant heat can penetrate up to 1.5 inches (almost 4 cm) beneath the skin.
I heard of someone doing a simulation that certain infrared frequencies could affect DNA but I still haven't seen any actual research showing that really happens. If this is the source of Dr' Greene's inferences of "genetic changes" I haven't seen it substantiated. There's no reason to doubt that terahertz radiation aka infrared radiation can be felt as "heat", that's well accepted.


Dr Green advised John's care provider on appropriate treatment based on this non-ionising radiation exposure.
Did he say what that treatment was?


Which leaves the following questions for me:
- If Dr Green is being accurate (over numerous posts and interviews) then John was exposed to something that Dr Green does not understand and is not a black project where did he encounter this if not the RFI?
So does he understand or doesn't he? I tend to agree that he doesn't understand yet I keep hearing references that imply he does understand, like his speculation about "most likely " frequency ranges. I look at it from a time scale, if an exposure to something could have happened sometime within say a 5 year period of John Burroughs' service, If you generously say Rendlesham forest incident was 3 days out of those 1825 days that still means he had 1822 other days to be exposed to things in his service during those 5 years, meaning 99.8% chance it wasn't related to RFI purely on that basis.


- If there are genetic differences in experiencers (genomics of supernormality) are they hereditary or epigenetic?
I think you could use some fine-tuning of your skeptical abilities, unless you can point to the research that supports what you're talking about and assuming the research isn't full of serious problems.


- if John was sectioned due to being part of this UAP treatment group why did he suggest he could supply the RFI derived weapons document which would be restricted?
If you're referring to his facebook statement "That document will be revealed in due time." of course that raises questions, like what is the source of this "due time" and why not reveal it now? I find it very annoying that he claims to have things which sort of support his claims but he's not sharing them, nor is he forthcoming about why he says he can share this later but not now. However from the vague description I'm not expecting much if or when it's finally revealed.

edit on 2017523 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman





Let's see if that document materializes.


That "could" be a long wait and should it occur
we know were it will first appear....




posted on May, 24 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

All those points are very pertinent.

The only thing we can say with a degree of some certainty is that John Burroughs had to fight to make his case and eventually won it. He had a couple of US Senators involved and the case was even highlighted to President Obama.

Are his medical records classified? We will never be able to find out as they are exempt from FOIA requests anyway.




, If you generously say Rendlesham forest incident was 3 days out of those 1825 days that still means he had 1822 other days to be exposed to things in his service during those 5 years, meaning 99.8% chance it wasn't related to RFI purely on that basis.


I can actually round that number down.


In 1979, Burroughs passed the USAF entrance physical and was assigned to RAF Woodbridge, where, in December, 1980 he was exposed to the effects of an anomalous vehicle. From the moment of the event, Burroughs suffered from a variety of symptoms, including those of eye, throat, and gum disease.

In the summer of 1981, Burroughs made a visit to a civilian emergency room and was found to have an unusual heart condition. Despite this, he was allowed to stay in the military and remain on active duty.

See : Full Document



So we can actually say it was probably somewhere around 500-700 day window when the injury may have occurred. Of course we have to believe the statements made about this. But if we can't believe the lawyers, Kit Green and John Burroughs then it makes the story even murkier.

Burroughs was also technically off duty on the 'Halt' night as he's readily admitted.

Would that affect his claim for injuries in the line of duty? Maybe he'll let us know indirectly?


edit on 24/5/17 by mirageman because: tidy up



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Dr Green is directly quoted by Jacobsen as running a a treatment group for UAP encounter survivors. Dr Green's research indicates that there are immunological changes and genetic difference as a result of such encounters, which are usually airborne phenomena.

Has Dr. Green actually published any research on this that we can read? If not it sounds like an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence to support it.


I think we've covered this before but Dr Green is a medical doctor with the necessary qualifications. I think that Wayne State may have relevant papers but academic papers sometimes are not freely available. I've no idea therefore if there are papers and I think we have to assume not. I think importance here is not "is Dr Green correct" but rather why would he genuinely believe this, as he does?


Dr Green advised John's care provider on appropriate treatment based on this non-ionising radiation exposure.

Did he say what that treatment was?


Heat damage is quite different to the typical tissue damage from ionising radiation.I believe that the non-ioning part is concrete as it would led to a very different treatment path. Are you suggesting there is reason to believe that the treatment John received for the incident that may have occurred elsewhere did not work?


So does he understand or doesn't he? I tend to agree that he doesn't understand yet I keep hearing references that imply he does understand, like his speculation about "most likely " frequency ranges.


I agree Arby, I agree!


I look at it from a time scale, if an exposure to something could have happened sometime within say a 5 year period of John Burroughs' service, If you generously say Rendlesham forest incident was 3 days out of those 1825 days that still means he had 1822 other days to be exposed to things in his service during those 5 years, meaning 99.8% chance it wasn't related to RFI purely on that basis.


Arby, I agree with your skepticism 100% and your sentiment. Obviously probability and statistics of rare events don't actually work that way though. In that, I agree with you, but your probability approach is just not viable. I'm guessing you were being tongue in cheek



- If there are genetic differences in experiencers (genomics of supernormality) are they hereditary or epigenetic?

I think you could use some fine-tuning of your skeptical abilities, unless you can point to the research that supports what you're talking about and assuming the research isn't full of serious problems.


I think maybe you misread - "If there are" is functioning as a qualifier based on quotations made by Dr Green to Annie Jacobsen in 'Phenomenon'. Having said that, regardless of objective truth I'm interested in what all players say - the subjective side of things. Certainly what they are quoted on - be that "here is what made John ill","here is the UAP treatment group I run" or "These are the final MOD files".

Let me put it another way, regardless of what happened, if this area of genetics is where interests reside then that may be of importance. I'm less interested in the objective reality of what happened (as that seems unknowable unless we get more documentary proof) and more the biases, persistent patterns and strange loops.

edit on 24-5-2017 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: mirageman





Let's see if that document materializes.


That "could" be a long wait and should it occur
we know were it will first appear....





I don't understand? Where?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ctj83

Hello Ctj83, this should demonstrate the picture
.

www.youtube.com...






posted on May, 25 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

From the document that MM provided a link to:


in December, 1980 he was exposed to the effects of an anomalous vehicle.


A ‘vehicle’. What an odd choice of words since Burroughs himself claims he saw nothing but lights.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

While that fails to address the when the document may appear it certainly explains the "Howe"


I'm expecting some Great Quotations as well after watching the first 10 seconds of that.

She's been in the background of this case for a long while. Totally missing the first mention of 'binary' back in the 1990s and now very much a phenomenon on a certain KGRA radio show of the same name. Perhaps there is a sort of Matthew Corbett influence going on there? What do you reckon?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

Seems odd doesn't it.

At that time 11-18-13 (That's Nov. 18th 2013 - I wish America would get it's date formats in line with the rest of the world) Penniston was still lodging his claim against the VA along with Burroughs. And of course as we know Penniston maintains a solid craft (or vehicle) of either silver or black colour was involved.



Pat Frascogna accompanied them both to the Citizen's Hearings on UFOs in 2013 and can be seen sitting off to the right of Burroughs (his left) about 2 mins into the above clip. Whether his use of the term 'anomolous vehicle' was influenced by Penniston though I don't know.


edit on 25/5/17 by mirageman because: edit



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
So we can actually say it was probably somewhere around 500-700 day window when the injury may have occurred. Of course we have to believe the statements made about this.
That narrows it down, but there's still a lot of days in there not spent in Rendlesham forest.


But if we can't believe the lawyers, Kit Green and John Burroughs then it makes the story even murkier.
When Kit Green infers he's speculating, I believe he's speculating, but his speculations are highly speculative in my opinion and I'm certainly not inclined to take them as factual in any way nor is it his intent that anybody should, though I think some people may be somewhat inclined to try to do so.


Burroughs was also technically off duty on the 'Halt' night as he's readily admitted.
Would that affect his claim for injuries in the line of duty? Maybe he'll let us know indirectly?
No idea but I thought he finally got a settlement. The story in that document about the runaround Burroughs got seems like a bigger story than some guys misinterpreting some lights and rabbit scratchings in the woods.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ctj83
I think we've covered this before but Dr Green is a medical doctor with the necessary qualifications. I think that Wayne State may have relevant papers but academic papers sometimes are not freely available. I've no idea therefore if there are papers and I think we have to assume not. I think importance here is not "is Dr Green correct" but rather why would he genuinely believe this, as he does?
Many people have many beliefs about UFOs and UAPs and it seems evident to me that Dr Green believes there was a UAP in Rendlesham forest and I'm not at all convinced that he's correct about that. If he's got any convincing evidence of that he hasn't shared it but I don't think he does. So basically I don't trust his judgement or find him credible on claiming there was a UAP in Rendlesham forest, which causes me to question the credibility of his other claims unless he can support them with evidence. If I don't trust his ability to identify a UAP event then of course I can't have much faith in any of his UAP related research.


Heat damage is quite different to the typical tissue damage from ionising radiation.I believe that the non-ioning part is concrete as it would led to a very different treatment path. Are you suggesting there is reason to believe that the treatment John received for the incident that may have occurred elsewhere did not work?
There is so much misinformation in this case, I question everything.


I agree Arby, I agree!
I'm glad we can agree on that!


I'm guessing you were being tongue in cheek
No I was quite serious. Obviously Burroughs has heart problems but the cause is still unclear to me. Too many people are grossly misinterpreting the VA settlement.


Let me put it another way, regardless of what happened, if this area of genetics is where interests reside then that may be of importance. I'm less interested in the objective reality of what happened (as that seems unknowable unless we get more documentary proof) and more the biases, persistent patterns and strange loops.
If there's real research and real evidence of the genetics and it stands up to peer review then I would also be interested, but I think you find Kit Green a more reliable source than I do. I just explained why he has credibility problems with me, though hopefully he's better at his professional medical endeavors than interpreting the evidence of events in Rendlesham forest.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guest101
A ‘vehicle’. What an odd choice of words since Burroughs himself claims he saw nothing but lights.
It sounds more impressive than saying he was chasing some lights in the woods and ended up looking at a lighthouse.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

HI Arby,

I think what CTJ was alluding to and perhaps what you and me are questioning as well but from slightly different perspectives boils down to basically this.

If Burroughs was not injured as a result of something encountered in Rendlesham Forest in Dec 1980 then how do we explain all statements from Burroughs, Frascogna (his lawyer) and of course Dr. Green on the events surrounding this claim?

This is a morsel of what has been said:

i) The VA first of all denied he had even served his country until 1982 as his DD214 (discharge form) showed he did not serve until 1982. Someone had 'altered' his records. Burroughs went through 2 US Senators and even highlighted his issues to the Whitehouse before the VA eventually settled.

ii) A weapon was developed off the back of the events at Rendlesham.

iii) Dr. Green claims an "odd air form" injured Burroughs and that his medical records were highly classified and remain so to this day.

iv) Burroughs claims he was 'sectioned' as part of his VA settlement and thus now limited in making further FOI requests regarding the case.

v) Penniston has also made (unsubstantiated) claims that Burroughs had sold his soul to the MIC and was not prepared to do the same to settle his own claim.

Now if all of that is true then what's going on? Something peculiar for sure. But we don't really know what.

If none of those statements are true then why are Burroughs, Frascogna and Green putting them out there?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

HI Arby,

I think what CTJ was alluding to and perhaps what you and me are questioning as well but from slightly different perspectives boils down to basically this.

If Burroughs was not injured as a result of something encountered in Rendlesham Forest in Dec 1980 then how do we explain all statements from Burroughs, Frascogna (his lawyer) and of course Dr. Green on the events surrounding this claim?

This is a morsel of what has been said:

i) The VA first of all denied he had even served his country until 1982 as his DD214 (discharge form) showed he did not serve until 1982. Someone had 'altered' his records. Burroughs went through 2 US Senators and even highlighted his issues to the Whitehouse before the VA eventually settled.

ii) A weapon was developed off the back of the events at Rendlesham.

iii) Dr. Green claims an "odd air form" injured Burroughs and that his medical records were highly classified and remain so to this day.

iv) Burroughs claims he was 'sectioned' as part of his VA settlement and thus now limited in making further FOI requests regarding the case.

v) Penniston has also made (unsubstantiated) claims that Burroughs had sold his soul to the MIC and was not prepared to do the same to settle his own claim.

Now if all of that is true then what's going on? Something peculiar for sure. But we don't really know what.

If none of those statements are true then why are Burroughs, Frascogna and Green putting them out there?


Bingo.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
If none of those statements are true then why are Burroughs, Frascogna and Green putting them out there?
From my perspective, untrue statements surrounding the Rendlesham forest incident are nothing new. You can also ask me why is Penniston making up BS about binary codes and I don't have an answer for that either.

What I can say is I think anybody who accepts any statements at face value without supporting evidence is ignoring all we already know about this case which is that it's full of statements that we know to be false just because so many are contradicting each other, and in some cases the witnesses are even contradicting themselves at different points in time.

So it seems somewhat foolish to assume credibility of any claims in a case well known to be packed full of contradictions and what was the word in the title of your e-book? Oh yeah, "lies", so I know you're aware of them too.

If you ask me to speculate, it's got something to do with Burroughs seeking compensation, which is why he might change his story from "I only saw lights" to talk of an "anomalous vehicle" or take other actions consistent with his desired goals. If his lawyer gets a cut of that compensation or gets paid for doing interviews on an interview circuit there's some possible motivation for him to shall we say "exaggerate" which perhaps sounds less damning than "lying" but I have little doubt that he's not being completely accurate in what he says just as I'm sure Penniston's story has problems.

edit on 2017526 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I guess 'because legal' is fair enough answer.

MirageMan:


If Burroughs was not injured as a result of something encountered in Rendlesham Forest in Dec 1980 then how do we explain all statements from Burroughs, Frascogna (his lawyer) and of course Dr. Green on the events surrounding this claim?


Arbitrageur


If you ask me to speculate, it's got something to do with Burroughs seeking compensation, which is why he might change his story from "I only saw lights" to talk of an "anomalous vehicle" or take other actions consistent with his desired goals. If his lawyer gets a cut of that compensation or gets paid for doing interviews on an interview circuit there's some possible motivation for him to shall we say "exaggerate" which perhaps sounds less damning than "lying" but I have little doubt that he's not being completely accurate in what he says just as I'm sure Penniston's story has problems.


Are you including Dr Green in that attempt to seek compensation for John? Or is his 11 year old UAP treatment group a convenient coincidence for this speculation about compensation seeking and nothing more?

Where is this "anomalous vehicle" phrase from? I've never seen Burroughs use it and it seems that it's misleading to throw it around without a source or context?
edit on 26-5-2017 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
87
<< 149  150  151    153  154  155 >>

log in

join