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: 169
89
<< 166  167  168    170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Baablacksheep




Exactly where does this fit with the RFI ? and why?


If you look back on the whole 'phenomenon' ,dating way back, there are fingerprints of certain agencies always involved. From the 'contactees' of whom certain were suspected of being 'plants', to UFO groups infiltrated (sometimes openly) by 'company' men. Then you have the abductions like the Hills. Also the crazy stories from the 80s which can be traced back to a certain group of people with close links to each other and the spook agencies.

What I'm saying is the whole 'alien' back story could well be just a fantasy and it has actually been used as a cover. The 'show business' side is the front . Hence a group of untouchable 'paid off' UFOtainers to create, complicate and perpetuate, but never solve any UFO cases for the hardcore believers. The secret stuff goes on behind the curtain with the development of technology and methods to manipulate the way we think and act. The result is that the hardcore believers continue to look in the wrong direction. It also keeps inquiring minds away from a topic that social conditioning has made most people to consider crazy - UFOs. Rendlesham may be a part of that scenario for many of the reasons long discussed in this thread. A huge misdirection.

Or maybe that's just what they made me think?




If Grill Flame played a part in Rendlesham, then the idea of a cover story using the National Academy of Sciences was suggested in 1979?

'Mr Graff next suggested that a cover story to be developed for the program: Dr Verona suggested that the National Academy of Sciences might back an open program to investigate paranormal phenomena. The recommendation will be brought to Dr. Davis attention. '
www.cia.gov... (PDF page 2)




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: stealthyaroura

Warren, LMH, throw in Jamie Musson and we will have the unholy trinity.


I've already booked my ticket Zazz



I look forward to seeing you there




LOL that looks like a ticket to hell !
I shall come armed with holy water, a young priest and an old priest. (and vodka)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AdamE

Also interesting that document mentions one of the Project goals should be the identification and extent of Soviet parapsychology programs. At that time it was felt that Soviet research was ahead of America's.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Just came across this story today. Former Minister of Defence Nick Pope is dismissing new allegations it was some type of military test capsule that landed in Rendlesham Forest.



Due to high interest in the case, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) investigated the case and concluded the lights from Orford Ness lighthouse had been responsible for what was seen over the two nights in terms of lights. Yesterday, Express.co.uk revealed the theory of UFO researcher Russ Callaghan, who produced an image of a space capsule that was stationed at one of two nearby airbases at the time of the incident.




He claimed the strange sighting was actually the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron which was based at RAF Woodbridge at the time of the incident. Express.co.uk put the theory to Mr Pope, who carried out a cold case review of Rendlesham in 1994. Mr Pope said the case still mystified him, with no earthly explanations so far.






He said: "The first point to make is that there's no mention of the 67th ARRS dummy capsule in any of the original United States Air Force or Ministry of Defence documentation on the case. "It's inconceivable to me that both the USAF and the MoD officials handling the original investigation would have missed this. "Despite the claim the 67th ARRS had conducted a flight on Christmas night, I don't believe this is correct. "Indeed, according to my information, there was no military flying at the base at all that night.


Furthermore, if there had been, everybody would have seen and heard the helicopter that was allegedly involved, and yet they didn't. "If this had been the explanation, everyone would simply have said so. "More fundamentally, the theory simply doesn't fit the facts, when considering what the witnesses actually saw and reported. "Neither does it fit with the radar data, or the radioactivity levels found at the landing site, which the MoD's Defence Intelligence Staff assessed as being 'significantly higher than the average background'. "In summary, while this is an intriguing theory, it's one that I've heard before and had discounted."



UFO Researcher Russ Callaghan said he discovered the AARS did a practice run on Christmas Day Night 1980, and claims they came back the next night to recover it, ( the capsule) after running into some type of problems and the chopper pilot dropping the capsule in the forest.


He said: "They came back the next night to recover it. This could explain what they men say, but nothing I am saying here is proof positive." Mr Callaghan believes the recovery operation could explain the subsequent large military presence in the forest, and that the ARRS would not have had to brief Colonel Halt's squadron on what happened. However, the theory does not explain why the MoD investigation report did not offer this up as an explanation for the sighting and just blamed it on the lighthouse. Questions also remain on why the US Veterans' Association agreed in 2015 to pay the medical bills of Mr Burroughs who claims exposure to high levels of radiation during the "UFO encounter" left him with heart problems. Related articles

edit on 13pm30pm5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
An old theory has been recycled for trash tabloid the Daily Express.





Does this photograph and shock new evidence solve Rendlesham UFO mystery once and for all?

The famous Rendlesham UFO did descend from the air and land in woods next to two US military bases 37 years ago - and this image that has surfaced proves it, it has been claimed......



Due to high interest in the case, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) investigated the case and concluded the lights from Orford Ness lighthouse had been responsible for what was seen over the two nights in terms of lights.

However, this has not satisfied most UFO investigators, failing to explain claims of the UFO being on the ground on the first night.

........Mr Callaghan also does not believe the lighthouse was fully responsible for what happened, although he did cast doubt on recent claims from Mr Halt, who insists a real UFO was probably involved.

Mr Callaghan said: "No, it wasn't the lighthouse in my opinion."

.....Now, he believes he may have obtained a photograph of what the men saw.

Mr Callaghan has discovered that the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron was based at RAF Woodbridge at the time of the incident.....

Mr Callaghan produced images of the capsule that was actually used at RAF Woodbridge on the night in question.

He said documentary film makers in the Rendlesham case had always left out details about the ARRS crew and the capsule.

He said: "There was no Apollo in 1980, but satellite photographs were taken on film that made entry back to Earth on a mini capsule.

"The ARRS practiced on a mock up. This is the one that was at Bentwaters, it is in Florida now. What is interesting is it was on three legs."

Mr Callaghan said he discovered the ARRS did a practice run on Christmas Day night 1980, but that it had run into problems, and "the chopper pilot dropped the capsule in Rendlesham Forest”.

He said: "They came back the next night to recover it. This could explain what they men say, but nothing I am saying here is proof positive.".........

Mr Callaghan believes the recovery operation could explain the subsequent large military presence in the forest, and that the ARRS would not have had to brief Colonel Halt's squadron on what happened.

However, the theory does not explain why the MoD investigation report did not offer this up as an explanation for the sighting and just blamed it on the lighthouse..........

Source : Daily Express UK






This was followed up a yesterday with comments by Nick Pope




Mr Pope said the case still mystified him, with no earthly explanations so far.

He said: "The first point to make is that there's no mention of the 67th ARRS dummy capsule in any of the original United States Air Force or Ministry of Defence documentation on the case.

"It's inconceivable to me that both the USAF and the MoD officials handling the original investigation would have missed this.

"Despite the claim the 67th ARRS had conducted a flight on Christmas night, I don't believe this is correct.

"Indeed, according to my information, there was no military flying at the base at all that night.

"Furthermore, if there had been, everybody would have seen and heard the helicopter that was allegedly involved, and yet they didn't.

"If this had been the explanation, everyone would simply have said so.

"More fundamentally, the theory simply doesn't fit the facts, when considering what the witnesses actually saw and reported.

"Neither does it fit with the radar data, or the radioactivity levels found at the landing site, which the MoD's Defence Intelligence Staff assessed as being 'significantly higher than the average background'.

"In summary, while this is an intriguing theory, it's one that I've heard before and had discounted."

Source : Daily Express UK



This theory has been around for a long time. Perhaps more than a decade. Radio Suffolk promoted it in their Rendlesham Revealed show back in 2010. I am not sure what the radar data that Nick Pope claims exists beyond anecdotal. The radiation readings are also doubted by many as being significant.

However the problem with the whole theory is that if the ARRS did a practice run on Christmas night 1980 and really dropped the capsule in the woods then what happened next day?

If the capsule was picked up before 10:30am when the Suffolk police went to the landing site then how did Jim Penniston make his plaster casts without noticing anything. Or any of the other officers out there investigating. If it wasn't then it would still have been there wouldn't it? Or did everyone go to the wrong landing site?

Also it fails totally to explain the 3rd night when the UFO came back and Halt went out to investigate. Did they ARRS go out and do it all again? I really don't think so. This theory should be another one long crossed off the list. Sorry Mr. Callaghan but it never worked when first scrutinized and doesn't work now.
edit on 13/9/17 by mirageman because: fix pic



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Hello data. I was just posting about the same piece. However the story about the capsule is basically a load of crap.

Nick Pope totally misses the point.

It really is this simple.

The capsule could not have been in the forest on Christmas Day, then removed before the police arrived at the landing site on Boxing Day only to be back there again two nights later. The night when Halt went out because the "UFO was back".
edit on 13/9/17 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
hello MM! I think its bs like this capsule non story that tends to cloud much of what we don't know that happened, to what we do know that happened. I am still in the camp that this was an et event. Call me dense, but I have to go by what I have read and heard over the years. I know there are some aspects that may not necessarily add up, but I find it hard to believe that these military people would risk their careers by coming up with a made up story about lights and a ufo that landed. Just my 2 cents worth.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: data5091
I find it hard to believe that these military people would risk their careers by coming up with a made up story about lights and a ufo that landed. Just my 2 cents worth.
It's very odd to me you would commingle the lights with the landing like that.

There's no reason at all to doubt the airmen saw lights, and according to some witnesses that's all they ever saw.

There are lots of reasons to doubt the stories about a landing, not the least of which are the conflicting stories which are not consistent among the witnesses and the statement from the police. The police were called out to investigate and they were shown the so-called "landing marks". The police described them as "apparently of no depth" and thought the marks could have been made by an animal.

edit on 2017913 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
There's no reason at all to doubt the airmen saw lights, and according to some witnesses that's all they ever saw.


Law Enforcement Bentwaters called it a UFO:


“We are terming it as a UFO at present”


Even the next morning:


“In reference to the UFO reported last night, we have found a place where a craft of some sort seems to have landed”


If these men only reported ‘lights’, who made the jump to a ‘UFO’ and even a ‘craft’?

And where did Halt get the description he put in his memo?


The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high.


True, such description is nowhere to be found in the witness statements available in the public domain. So did Halt make this up? Or did he get it from another source?



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101





And where did Halt get the description he put in his memo?


The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high.



Maybe this was what Halt believes he saw... "early in the morning of 27 Dec 80".

Because Halt has condensed 3 days of incidents into just one night for his memo. Strange that he chose to use the 27th as the date when it all happened. The night where details are sparse but the date that also appears in Penniston's legendary notebook as well.
edit on 14/9/17 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
LOL ZAZZ and i hear ya MM,What i should of said is LMH has never as far as ive really heard her mention
any other explanation than the 1 narrative that a UFO landed binary code blah blah WHEN there is so much
more to theorise as expressed in this thread.

just sticks to The one explanation and thinks that's the truth. But then she is mainstream so this is why
I think she is pushing the UFO story to keep the sheeple happy.

she just isn't doing her job cos if she was we would of heard her spout all the other possibilities but we don't.

RFI the gift that keeps on giving Thanks to this thread MIRAGEMAN.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
One description I heard regarding Rendlesham was that of, "... molten metal dripping off the side of the craft".

I cant say with any certainty that my experience was the same or not, but I did have an experience in the woods at night and my immediate impression was exactly the same: "dripping molten metal". The difference was that as I moved closer the woods thinned out and I could see the light source. As the woods thinned the 'dripping metal' effect dissipated.

When looking through numerous branches, twigs, trees, brush, etc, at night directly toward a bright light you can see slivers of the light in the long, narrow "V" shapes made by hundreds or thousands of tree limbs converging at varying degrees. The light illuminates these branches and diffuses around them. As you move, the wind blows, whatever, the light appears to drip as parts are revealed as others become hidden behind other obstructions. I tested and proved that theory by standing still and just rocking side to side. One 'drip' of light just raised and lowered in sync with my movements as I stood there watching. I had no doubt whatsoever as to the nature of the dripping metal. But I was also able to get close enough to see the light source as the woods thinned out and the effect became less frequent and obvious.

Just thought I would add that to the mix.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101
I didn't say nobody ever called it a UFO, but let's look at your own comments about the lack of credibility of witnesses reporting an object:


originally posted by: Guest101
Well, morphing lights that travel through the air have been proven to exist. They have been filmed by scientists, by their automatic observation station at Hessdalen (see first movie clip below).

But the Big Question is, was there a solid craft?
The landing traces and Halt’s memo seem to suggest this, but the only witnesses who reported a solid craft were Penniston, Warren, and Bustinza (in his phone interview with Fawcett).

Penniston and Warren have been exposed earlier in this thread, and Bustinza told three different stories, his last one did not involve a solid craft at all. So the evidence for anything solid grows thin… or do you have information on this that we missed, Jenny?
So you yourself said the evidence for anything solid grows thin, which is not far from the truth which is that there was never any substantial evidence of such IMO.

When I said "according to some witnesses (lights were) all they ever saw" I was thinking of Skip Buran and Cabansag, and of course Conde puts the whole episode in an interesting light:

2010 update – Conde speaks out

Conde said: “I was almost certainly the Woodbridge patrol or the LE flight chief the night of Halt’s expedition. All I remember was the laughing about the people seeing UFO’s. It was not treated seriously at all. It was a non-event when it happened, and the stories of the believers are the ones that have morphed over time.


Skip Buran said this:
(see link to the pdf on the above linked page for this quote)

I remember a statement made about an object, claiming there appeared to be one, but no one could get close to it. It's because there was no object.
He was the shift commander for the first night and thought there might have been a plane crash which is why he sent men out to investigate, but plane crash doesn't imply lights still up in the sky to me. He thought Cabansag's witness statement was a good description of events that night.

You bring up Halt but at least one of the lights he saw flashed at the same interval as the Orfordness lighthouse and he saw other lights, but whether you call those lights or UFOs makes no difference to me. I'm pretty sure some of the "star-like" lights he saw were probably stars, and yes it's not unusual for people to refer to stars as UFOs. Even before the Rendlesham forest incident, the MOD already published something saying that one source of "UFO" reports was known to be lights on towers, another source was stars and other astronomical objects. so those sources of UFO sightings did not in any way begin in Rendlesham forest in 1980.

Other people including Halt's boss should have been able to see what Halt was seeing if there were flying objects but Conrad claims he couldn't see anything unusual, which is probably why no squadrons of fighters were called out to shoot down the "star-like objects" that were probably stars with maybe some auto-kinesis thrown in, something you don't seem to be familiar with but which Ridpath explains in the video below.

Flat Earth Nukes

Halt’s testimony has grown and become more elaborate in the constant re-telling, encouraged by his UFOlogical minders. Like Hastings and the others, he is now part of the UFO Disclosure movement and appears to see every new development through the lens of his belief in a conspiracy to hide evidence of ET visits. For that reason, he cannot be described as a “credible witness".

Furthermore, as I have revealed in New Light on Rendlesham, Halt’s former boss, the RAF Bentwaters base commander Col Ted Conrad, has gone on record to say he was in direct radio contact with his deputy as Halt’s experience in the forest unfolded. Conrad says he had trained Security Police on patrol looking out for anything unusual. But despite “a sparkling, clear, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions” they saw nothing. Neither was anything unusual reported by RAF Air Defence radars. That led him to conclude there was no hard evidence that required further action.

Even worse, Halt’s own laconic official account of the events, set out in his famous memo to the British Ministry of Defence makes no mention any threat to base security or the nuclear weapons store. By his own account, after several hours spent pursuing UFOs through the forest he simply turned around and went home to bed, leaving lights still visible in the sky as dawn broke (which strongly suggests they were bright stars as identified by astronomer Ian Ridpath). ...

So we are asked to believe that Halt, “an upstanding dry former military chief” neglected to mention a possible direct threat to a frontline NATO base either to his own superiors or the MoD, because he was concerned he would not be taken seriously.

But he then expects us to take him seriously when he reveals this same information on a TV programme 11 years after the event?

If the evidence for aliens interfering with nuclear weapons is so good – then why does Robert Hastings pick such poor examples to prove his case?

The bottom line is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In both the Malmstrom and RAF Woodbridge cases there is absolutely no evidence.

What we actually have is a mass of deeply conflicting and contradictory testimony concerning ambiguous events that happened decades ago. Testimony that is being filtered through the subjective and selective agenda of those who want us to believe in ETs and government cover-ups.

So Halt's later stories aren't even consistent with Halt's earlier stories and it amazes me that people want to assign credibility to Halt. He couldn't convince his superiors but I guess some people in a television audience are easier to convince and not disturbed by inconsistent or changing stories because they never bother to do enough research to find out the stories have changed. Halt's changes are more subtle and not quite as obvious as Penniston's fabricated binary code, but there are changes. Ian Ridpath highlights some of the major differences between what Halt says now versus what Halt said earlier and what is actually on his audio recording.




originally posted by: mirageman
Maybe this was what Halt believes he saw... "early in the morning of 27 Dec 80".

Because Halt has condensed 3 days of incidents into just one night for his memo. Strange that he chose to use the 27th as the date when it all happened. The night where details are sparse but the date that also appears in Penniston's legendary notebook as well.
I got a good laugh out of that, thanks! The night where everything happened according to the documentation, happens to be the night where nothing happened as far as people who have researched the timelines can tell.



edit on 2017914 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
It appears John Burroughs
Is ill again....

m.facebook.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

sorry to read that. Sounds like he has a lot going on.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
It appears John Burroughs
Is ill again....

m.facebook.com...


a reply to: data5091

This is not good news at all. As I have said a number of times. No matter how sarcastic and snarky this thread seems at times we certainly do not wish ill of anyone involved in the case. So, if you are looking in John, then I'm sure we all wish you a speedy and full recovery.

Get well soon mate.

edit on 15/9/17 by mirageman because: add



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yep it's a small part of the case. And Halt confirms his observations on his tape. He also said on the Unsolved Mysteries TV show:



“The object suddenly exploded; a silent explosion... and broke into three to five white objects and rapidly disappeared. One of the lights hovered high in the sky.


Could it be that what he saw was something similar to yourself?

Of course nowadays it can all be done with LED lights as well.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hello again Arby. A few points here.

Conde said: “I was almost certainly the Woodbridge patrol or the LE flight chief the night of Halt’s expedition. All I remember was the laughing about the people seeing UFO’s. It was not treated seriously at all. It was a non-event when it happened, and the stories of the believers are the ones that have morphed over time.

I don't really give a lot of credence to Kevin Conde's story there. Even Ian Ridpath says in the source you've quoted.


....although there is no reason to doubt that Conde pulled the stunt he describes, there is considerable doubt over when it occurred. Conde himself cannot remember the exact date, but from his description of the circumstances, including the weather conditions, it seems that it did not coincide with the Rendlesham UFO sighting





Skip Buran said this: (see link to the pdf on the above linked page for this quote)

I remember a statement made about an object, claiming there appeared to be one, but no one could get close to it. It's because there was no object.

He was the shift commander for the first night and thought there might have been a plane crash which is why he sent men out to investigate, but plane crash doesn't imply lights still up in the sky to me. He thought Cabansag's witness statement was a good description of events that night.


Yes only Penniston appears to have claimed to have seen a clearly defined 'object'.

Cabansag's statement also includes notes stating "I'm convinced this is a cleaned up version....."



I think Halt wrote that. I also question his lack of any real action if he thought objects over his airbase were beaming lights down into sensitive weapons storage areas.


....The night where everything happened according to the documentation, happens to be the night where nothing happened as far as people who have researched the timelines can tell....


Indeed. How do we explain that mashing up of the whole incident in that memo?

It's difficult to explain. Halt said he did it from memory. Some memory if it was that bad a couple of week's later!
The 27th Dec 1980 was the night Lt.Tamplin saw lights in the forest, lost her mind, maybe her M16 rifle and had to be relieved from duty. She left the service after a nervous breakdown shortly after. Halt claimed he liked her a lot but didn't find out about this until 25 years or more later.

Very strange for a Deputy Base Commander to not know about such a serious incident with his personnel. Halt stated that he checked the 'blotters' when he arrived on duty after the first night. He's also mentioned there were regular senior staff meetings. His excursion off base and the incident in general was discussed at one. Was the loss of (and need to replace) one of his commissioned officers never discovered or discussed?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: stealthyaroura




LOL ZAZZ and i hear ya MM,What i should of said is LMH has never as far as ive really heard her mention
any other explanation than the 1 narrative that a UFO landed binary code blah blah WHEN there is so much
more to theorise as expressed in this thread.

just sticks to The one explanation and thinks that's the truth.


What amazes me most is how no one ever questions Linda on her very dubious assertions. She's all about promoting aliens, abductions, crop circles with all the tricks of the trade to appeal to those who have yet to fine tune their critical thinking filters. She's seemingly untouchable. Which makes me wonder if a huge chunk of the US UFOtainment industry is controlled by a very wealthy or powerful centrally controlled organisation and she's on the payroll!



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   





What amazes me most is how no one ever questions Linda on her very dubious assertions. She's all about promoting aliens, abductions, crop circles with all the tricks of the trade to appeal to those who have yet to fine tune their critical thinking filters. She's seemingly untouchable. Which makes me wonder if a huge chunk of the US UFOtainment industry is controlled by a very wealthy or powerful centrally controlled organisation and she's on the payroll!


exactly! just what i was trying to say MM.







 
89
<< 166  167  168    170 >>

log in

join