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: 17
87
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Guest101
In the documentary below, you can hear two witnesses who were at the right location, at the right time.
They tell that the landing marks were actually 12 feet apart (approximately 3,6 meters), and in a equidistant triangle.

And their written reports, with accompanying diagrams, are to be found where, exactly?




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ianrid
 


Why? You never believed anything that didn’t fit your theory, whether it’s in an official document or not.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Additional Information

Andrew Pike’s Scientific Investigation

A scientist who wrote a scientific study on the Rendlesham incident; ”The Rendlesham File: Britain's Roswell” is Andrew Pike. He has now retired and up until now decided against re-issuing what is a very hard to find book these days. However he did write up a 4 page summary in UFO Matrix magazine a few years ago.

I have done my best to cover the main points below:

Andrew Pike was working on an officially funded plasma physics project during the time of the Rendlesham incident . This was a study of ball lightning, natural plasma glows, earth lights and similar phenomena. Plasmas are electrified gas where the atoms have been split into the positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons. If you pump energy into a gas it creates ‘plasma’.


He somehow became embroiled in scientific investigations in Suffolk in late December 1980 unaware at the time that a UFO incident was developing. What he thought was a physics investigation was dangerously overlapping into the murky world of Ufology.




“At that point, the two angles split into separate projects, but with common, grey and very unofficial, almost secret, overlaps. It was a right royal mess from day one.

Of course the two of us started knowing nothing of what was to become of the RFI, we just began by asking around about the red glows on an official level. We asked locals, forest workers, and anybody interested in talking. Most were except the forest workers!”

Source : UFO Matrix magazine Vol 1 Issue 3 P64

ufomatrix.com...



So there you go - Vince Thurkettle. Perhaps now we know who the two guys asking questions about strange lights around the forest were!




Anyway Pike’s studies revealed that red glows were a phenomena often observed in this part of East Anglia. It was only a little later that he realised why some people had been rather abrasive with his investigations and the reports of UFOs in the area at the same time. This piqued Andrew Pike’s interest and he began looking further into the incident.

Much of this had to be done before the release of MoD documents and even before a good copy of the Halt tape was available. In the early 1980s Pike researched anti-gravity, without much substance. However after looking into the experiments of Tesla and Thomas Townsend Brown and the electrifying of aircraft hulls. Startling results came from saucer or triangular shaped craft.

Remember how the Rendlesham witnesses mention a static charged atmosphere? By the late 1980s he was looking at a more natural cause, involving atmospheric effects. This also fitted some of those classic UFO sightings dating back the 1940s. He did find it frustrating that meteorological studies were full of reports of strange anomalous effects similar to UFO sightings but the science journals and reports of the time avoided any talk of UFOs.

Pike found that the dripping molten metal effect that Halt reported was a discharge effect that had been reported as far back as the 1920s. This was reproduced using charged plates which looked as if water was running off them when in fact it was an illusion caused by the electric charges. Reports of plasma balls have been seen popping out of the ground for centuries and sightings of airborne blue spheres dated back to the 1880s in journals like Nature.



Pike continued to collect his scientific data. By the 1990s he had compiled information on anti-gravity, superconductor technology and UFO cases where witnesses in close proximity to each other produced different descriptions and accounts of what they had seen.

Even a weird yellow fog seen by witnesses Greg Battram, Adrian Bustinza and Larry Warren at Rendlesham had been recorded in other incidents along with similar descriptions of an accompanying electrical humming noise. One case had a dog running into a yellow mist which evaporated as the dog entered, leaving a very wet, shocked animal with bloodshot eyes. The dog recovered fully 2 days later.

Pike was finding more and more evidence that hinted at natural causes and/or a charged ‘craft’ explanation but the military was becoming more and more evasive with his questions. By the turn of the millennium he was less convinced that any terrestrial anti-gravity technology could be behind an explanation for Rendlesham.

The Soviets had launched a number of military spy satellites in 1980. Due to the reports of a craft being reported Pike considered a satellite crash with the radiation spilling out into the forest from such a craft causing strange atmospheric effects. However he expressed concern over Jim Penniston and “his UFO disinformation” but does not expand on the topic any further. Of course we now know about the Soviet satellite rocket booster and how it fits in with this case.

More research led Pike into a possible military experiment being carried out in the area. The strange coloured balls of light reported in the forest were similar to “foo fighters” of World War II. Pike made a link to the use of radar and the sightings of “foo” in the war. Nearby RAF Bawdsey was heavily involved in radar research, microwave tests and drone technology and he was suspicious that a military experiment may have affected something near the twin bases. He also noted how a large proportion of UFO reports come from areas in the proximity of airports and military bases.

But was there any concrete connection with Rendlesham?

Weather control and experiments in the ionosphere were examined which could produce artificial lights. Mind games and electromagnetic fields were also possibilities involved as Andrew Pike mentions how a team of scientists were “fixing” the perimeter fences at the bases after the incident occurred. What were they fixing?



Ultimately Pike finishes up by saying:





“We are left with a few possibilities after the disinformation machine has done its work of overlapping stories…..”

“I know what it was not. It was not a lighthouse – that does not fit unless you want to cherry pick the data. That is not science that is scientific fraud. “

“Despite speaking out other airmen are still holding back….the RFI is too highly charged and emotional.

Source : UFO Matrix magazine Vol 1 Issue 3 p68



Unless someone has an on-line link then the only way to see the full column is to purchase a copy of the magazine.

Frustratingly the column hints at many things but only really concludes that this was not a bunch of US airmen chasing after a lighthouse. If the above all seems a little muddled and inconclusive then that's because it felt like I was reading a list of scientific possibilities but left without any direction as to where the real answer may or may not lie. This scientific investigation seemingly went on for decades but achieved little in resolution.

I was wondering if anyone out there has a copy (or has read a copy) of “The Rendlesham File: Britain's Roswell” and if it gives a clearer picture?

edit on 1/2/14 by mirageman because: spelling



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Guest101
Why? You never believed anything that didn’t fit your theory, whether it’s in an official document or not.

You know, you sound just like FIreMoon...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 


Guest101Well, according to Vince’s drawing the indentations were approximately 2,5 meters apart. This is incorrect.
Maybe that’s because he was at the wrong location, which is not surprising since he only took a look six weeks after the incidents and wasn’t even sure he was at the right spot. No wonder he was disappointed.

In the documentary below, you can hear two witnesses who were at the right location, at the right time.
They tell that the landing marks were actually 12 feet apart (approximately 3,6 meters), and in a equidistant triangle.

Witness 1 at 05:20
Witness 2 at 06:36

Another Rendlesham myth that turns out to be true ..


The photograph below shows the Rendlesham "UFO landing site". As you can see, at best it forms an uneven isosceles triangle. Not an equilateral triangle where everything is perfectly equal between all points. That's taking into account the perspective of the photo as well. Of course believers will claim this is a photo of the wrong site.



The landing site is one of the weakest parts of this incident. Including Penniston's 30 year after-the-fact claim of a binary code. Yet, it's continued to be argued.

Many members here seem to attribute god-like abilities and traits to military personnel. They can't be confused, don't lie, can't possibly misidentify something, etc. That's just not true. They are susceptible to mistakes just as anyone else. That's been shown to have happened with this case.

There needs to be some past factual foundation to build this case upon. The case in itself does not have enough evidence to prove this was a UFO. Scientifically studied and proven evidence from an outer space, dimensional, or whatever vehicle or being would be a start. But, over the last 65+ years of the popularity and thousands of sightings, landings, abductions, etc.. we still have zero evidence.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 


Halt does mention




The next day, three depressions 1.5 inches deep and 7 inches in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground.



Of which the details are a little on the scarce side.

I think it's fair to say that Vince Thurkettle is a very articulate man who had lived and worked in the area at the time. He too rarely gives interviews or attempts to self publicise himself by stealthily talking about this incident on the web to my knowledge. So I don't see any personal agenda of his to de-bunk this case unless he was being offered bribes to do so!

If Vince went to the alleged landing site 6 weeks after the event then I dare say the effects of the English winter weather and further animal interventions may have taken their toll to some extent. In Jan 1981 the Woodbridge temperature rarely dipped below zero. There was a fair amount of rain and even 5 or so days when snow/hail occurred.

Source : www.tutiempo.net...


It's also possible that with any 3 random scratchings forming a triangle that he could have visited the wrong site. But that also means the US airmen (Captain Verrano) and the police could also have mistaken what they thought was a landing site. There may never have been one!

In fact I don't think Burroughs, or Cabansag ever confirmed that the craft was actually sitting on the forest floor it was just assumed. Even Penniston seems unclear on how the craft was supported.

But then we still have to figure out what Penniston's plaster casts were for or indeed Gerry Harris' testimony that he saw a light dip down into the forest and then ascend back up above the treeline then vanish in the early hours of Boxing day? Or indeed try to make sense of Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza's stories and those red and blue lights in the forest that clearly weren't a lighthouse

It is no wonder people get confused.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Ectoplasm8

The photograph below shows the Rendlesham "UFO landing site". As you can see, at best it forms an uneven isosceles triangle. Not an equilateral triangle where everything is perfectly equal between all points. That's taking into account the perspective of the photo as well. Of course believers will claim this is a photo of the wrong site.









All I can say is that nothing ever appears what it seems to be in this case.

I'm sure you can see what I did there.




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


here is the triangle isolated from your picture



I believe what you are seeing is an illusion.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Spacevisitor, Mirageman, thanks for your contributions. The article by Boeche is very interesting. Some other excerpts of his phone interviews can be found in www.stealthskater.com... (page 5).

Unfortunately I never found a full transcript of his phone interviews.

The theories of Andrew Pike are also very interesting. He did seem to change his mind frequently. High power radar may have played a role in the Rendlesham incident.

Concerning natural plasma-like phenomena, you may find the Hessdalen project interesting.
( www.hessdalen.org... ). Especially the topics under “Phenomena” are worth a look. Under “Observations this year” you’ll find a link to a Youtube video (second observation, 24.08.2013). This video really made me think of the red/orange moving sphere that was reported by some Rendlesham witnesses. Like Rendlesham, Hessdalen is an area with a long history of strange phenomena. Because of their erratic nature they are very hard to study scientifically, but over the many years the scientists did manage to get some data.

If you like to know more about anti-gravity propulsion and plasma discharges around “Unconventional Flying Objects” I can recommend the well-known book by Hill ( www.amazon.com... ).



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8

The photograph below shows the Rendlesham "UFO landing site". As you can see, at best it forms an uneven isosceles triangle. Not an equilateral triangle where everything is perfectly equal between all points. That's taking into account the perspective of the photo as well. Of course believers will claim this is a photo of the wrong site.





You are misled by the 3D perspective.
Look for some images of regular tetrahedrons from different perspectives and you’ll see. (A regular tetrahedron is a 3D shape with equidistant triangles on all sides).

Look for instance at the picture below. The bottom triangle looks exactly like the triangle formed by the twigs but is in fact an equidistant triangle (note that the twigs are not exactly on the same spots as the landing marks):

krottbrand.bplaced.net...

In the landing site picture you also see that the sides of the triangle are roughly twice the length of the men. This corresponds to the 12 feet (3,6 m) mentioned in the 1984 CNN documentary (see above).
This is no surprise, since the man in the light suit is witness 2, while witness 1 is behind the camera.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 



You are misled by the 3D perspective.

You are correct that you can get a equilateral triangle to match the shape in the photo somewhat. You can also get a right triangle to look like that from different perspectives. In fact, you can change the perspective on any triangle and get it to look any way you want. You can't get much from the picture. Is it completely level or on a slope? That would change the triangle too.

Did anyone have a measuring tape or was this just eyeballed? Who and how would someone determine the center of the landing pod/rabbit diggings? Just the slightest bit off can really mess up your triangle.
edit on 2-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

mirageman
All I can say is that nothing ever appears what it seems to be in this case.

Indeed. Look at the size of that triangle. Now look how far apart the trees are. Now tell me — how could something that big manoeuvre between those trees?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

ianrid

mirageman
All I can say is that nothing ever appears what it seems to be in this case.

Indeed. Look at the size of that triangle. Now look how far apart the trees are. Now tell me — how could something that big manoeuvre between those trees?

I am afraid that logic doesn't work. Alien spacecraft can materialize and dematerialize, grow and shrink in size, and really do just about anything. Didn't you see star wars



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian
Alien spacecraft can materialize and dematerialize, grow and shrink in size, and really do just about anything.

And still need tripod landing gear when on the ground. (The Apollo lunar module sensibly had four legs, of course.).

The phrase "unfalsifiable hypothesis" comes to mind.

edit on 2-2-2014 by ianrid because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2014 by ianrid because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ianrid
 



And still need tripod landing gear when on the ground.


Only when there is a malfunction in the antigravity generator.

Personally, I stay away from the "how" or "why" aliens would do anything line of reasoning. the tripod landing gear does sound a little silly though.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
the tripod landing gear does sound a little silly though.


Well, now we know that we’re better off without the opinions of the local forester, we can concentrate on the official military documents:

“The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape”

Triangular? Suddenly the tripod starts to make sense …

A tripod support is stable as long as you keep the center of mass within the triangle formed by the pods.
That’s why cameras and triangular craft are generally put on tripods.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

mirageman
I was wondering if anyone out there has a copy (or has read a copy) of “The Rendlesham File: Britain's Roswell


After a bit of effort, I obtained a copy when looking into the Rendlesham incident in some detail a while ago. I've scanned that out-of-print book into a searchable PDF. I keep meaning to write to the author, Andrew Pike (I have his snail-mail address), to see if he would consent my uploading the searchable PDF copy of his book to a free files storage website.

From my earlier work on Rendlesham, I have quite a few official documents which aren't available online. I've previously made some other material relating to Rendlesham available online.

For various reasons (not least the petty bickering and hopelessly inaccurate statements made by some of the people involved in research of this incident - even by normal standards of ufological material), Rendlesham is a low priority for me at present.

Simply addressing some of the basic factual errors made in relation to Rendlesham in various existing UFO books and on various websites would require posting a few hundred pages of notes.

Suffice to say that some of those involved are not interested in letting the public know the truth.
edit on 3-2-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian

I am afraid that logic doesn't work. Alien spacecraft can materialize and dematerialize, grow and shrink in size, and really do just about anything. Didn't you see star wars



They can't even do that in Star Wars
But then again that was a long time ago in galaxy far, far away.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 



Triangular? Suddenly the tripod starts to make sense


for me the issue is that landing pods were not reported then you find 3 indentations in the ground that can't be distinguished from any other indentation and then assume that they were made by this unknown. In order to make this unknown "real" you need physical evidence so you are forced to make this association. Even if there really was something there, the landing pods/animal scrapings do not carry any weight. Pun intended.

As has been pointed out, any three points make a triangle. Also, irregular triangles create the illusion of depth as the link you provided shows.
this is why three points of light moving together can be seen as one solid object.

if there was some consistent uniformity to the casting or actual measurements or more detailed pictures, then there might be something to discuss. What we have is one poor photo and a casting of something that could be any irregular natural shape. Ambiguity is not your friend.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Further Information

Chris Armold’s Comments

Not all the witnesses believe the Rendlesham incident accounts to anything at all.

Chris Armold was interviewed by researcher James Easton in 1997 for his Voyager Newsletter. He was a member of the 81st Security Police Squadron on "B" Flight Law Enforcement during the incident. After the local police were notified Armold left his station at RAF Lakenheath sometime after Burroughs, Penniston and Cabansag had returned from their investigation.
He met up with John Burroughs at Woodbridge and then they drove to the end of the access road and left their vehicle.
Here are some quotes from Armold on what happened (or didn’t!)






There was absolutely nothing in the woods. We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange coloured lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were….

I suppose he [John Burroughs] wanted a second opinion or something, but no, we saw no evidence of lights, ships, creatures, aliens or the like. He had no idea what he saw. He related he saw lights but that was it……

The lights were primarily white and were very small, far off in the distance. Occasionally one would see a shade of blue or red but I attribute that to refraction from stained glass windows in a local church in addition to the fog and weather at the time. The lights did not move in erratic fashions nor did they move towards us or act in any manner which violated the laws of known physics…..



The lights were not from police cars, nor torches, nor alien space ships. You can bank on that….

I'm quite confident that Burroughs pointed out these marks [at the alleged landing site] before daylight. My opinion was that they looked like an impression made by a 3 pound US coffee can……

What he said at the time was that he saw something that 'landed' in the forest at that position. I found this to be quite unrealistic as there were no destroyed trees, scorch marks or the like. I found it and still find it very fishy…….

Source : ufoupdateslist.com...



So there we may have solved the issue of the red and blue lights if we could be sure that there was such an effect generated from a local church’s stained glass window into the forest.

The other problem is that there was no fog recorded in the area over this period.

www.tutiempo.net...

However smaller localised concentrations of mist and fog around and in the forest may have occurred which would not be recorded in a more general overview of the local weather.

Armold also claimed that the subsequent investigation with Halt was another big non-event as well.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join