Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

FireMoon
Doctor Brian May PHd Astro physics who published a paper on observations of the kinematics of the zodiacal dust cloud has never allowed himself to be referred to as "An Astronomer" in the media, because he simply doesn't believe he has the right to do so. Given that is the level of expertise, of some self styled "amateurs" in the field, then it plainly shows why Ian simply cannot be trusted. As per usual the Pelicanists on this forum adopt one set of criteria for establishing credibility for the likes of Bob Lazar however, the moment someone agrees with their opinions they are free to style themselves as whatever they so choose and speak with authority. Enid Blyton use to edit a famous series of encyclopaedias, can't quite see her as some 1930s version of Stephen fry though.

So, Ian is not an astronomer and he's not a UFO expert, which begs the question, on what authority does he speak other than his own ego?; and his presence in all those documentaries is based on an intellectual deceit. My point exactly, he's merely a Pelicanist with an eye for a media opportunity.

What exactly is a "UFO expert"?

You're only projecting. You seem to be like many other believers out there. Impressed with a title and think those titles somehow give a greater validity to a claim. So, I guess it's only logical for you to think skeptics search around like believers for any kind of information to back up a claim by someone. Such as: "Dr _____ says.. Colonel ____ says" Typical naive thinking.

As far as Bob Lazar, he's making extraordinary claims with absolutely zero evidence of anything. His background doesn't mean squat because of that one fact. If he came forward and had a part of a spaceship, or piece of an alien body that was thoroughly, independently and scientifically studied and proven it was not from Earth, I wouldn't care if he was a bum off the street. See how that works FireMoon? It's the believers that are impressed and have to search out and grab onto anything to help substantiate claims, such as a title. Not the skeptics/debunkers/non-believers. Like I said, you're only projecting that ridiculous mindset onto others. Your little ad nauseam tirade of Ian Ridpath's "references" shows that fact.

Carl Sagan was someone I admired. If he came forward when he was alive and said "Yes, aliens have and are visiting Earth today" with absolutely nothing of any evidentuary value to back up his claim, do you think any skeptic is just going to believe him? No, they won't. It would be the believers that would take him at face value and give greater credence because of his title. But, Sagan would have never made such a claim. He understood as he used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And after over 65 years, we still have zero extraordinary physical evidence.

You're living off a fantasy and belief FireMoon. Not facts. Arguing a case that does not have enough physical evidence in itself to show anything extra terrestrial in origin or has anything to do with human beings from the future. Your past "precedence" of lights, is only more lame reaching for something... anything to help an overall weak evidentuary case. I guess you believe the more stories glommed to this case, the more it makes this case factual? No, that's not how it works in the real world.

Ectoplasm8

And after over 65 years, we still have zero extraordinary physical evidence.

Hi Ectoplasm8, I am just interested, do you think or believe that the UFO phenomenon is a real phenomenon, so that as Leslie Kean described it in her book “UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record”

“There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.”

Or do you think or believe that there is really nothing to it and that it is all explainable with natural phenomenon or misidentifications of simple down to earth things such as is for instance to see here?

www.mapit.kk5.org...#/ufo-misidentifications/4537897354

www.uapreporting.org...

IsaacKoi

ianrid

miragemanHalt has also said that he has more tapes to a number of people.

He has said that, but he seems to be referring to recordings of the security radio traffic that night, not anything he recorded himself.

Hi Ian,

Halt has in fact referred to additional tapes that he recorded himself (not just the recordings of radio traffic), although seemingly after the event.

Halt has said that he arranged for several tapes to be "buried" in case anything happened to him. (Halt referred to these tapes in, for example, his Coast To Coast interview broadcast on 18 November 2012 - just after 43 minutes into that show).

edit on 9-2-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)

Dead man's triggers are popular with those in the advanced stages of UFO disease.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Yes, I believe there are objects in the skies that people can't identify. Many are misidentified objects. Look at the YouTube posts linked on this site, for instance. Watch how many people initially see a video and are convinced it's highly unusual, defies explanation, or extraterrestrial in nature. Then watch others give rational explanations for that object. Birds, balloons, insects, and things. Most times the rational explanation is the real answer and it's identified. Now, imagine the person who took the video, didn't record it, but only had a visual sighting of that object just one time. To this day that person would more than likely still think they saw a UFO and tell that story for years after. When in fact, they didn't. Those account for many of the same type of people that have seen UFOs through the years. It's only when objectively viewed through the eyes of many other people is when it becomes identified.

Are there objects that aren't unidentifiable? Sure. Does that make those objects extraterrestrial? No. According to believers, this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to our skies. These objects apparently land, abduct, implant, impregnate, crash, interact with humans, visit Earth in the past, etc. It's unreasonable and ridiculous to demand some type of physical evidence of objects flying around in our atmosphere. However, with the number of claimed incidents mentioned above of one-on-one involvement, incidents where an object is said to land, crash, or whatever, it's not unreasonable to ask for physical evidence. After all, this is an 'extraordinary' claim of an alien species visiting Earth. A life altering event. It would probably be the most amazing discovery in the history of man. Why should it be treated with so little respect and made so trite and typical? It shouldn't. That's why facts have to be demanded and some type of physical evidence shown and studied. Stories are not enough.

reply to post by spacevisitor

“There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.”

I read the Kean book a couple of years ago. As convincing as it was, that was the last UFO book I read. In the above quoted statement, "appears" is the key word. Its a word we use when we go to see a magician do tricks or when giving a subjective description. That one word is at the crux of the phenomenon.

Ectoplasm8
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yes, I believe there are objects in the skies that people can't identify. Many are misidentified objects. Look at the YouTube posts linked on this site, for instance. Watch how many people initially see a video and are convinced it's highly unusual, defies explanation, or extraterrestrial in nature. Then watch others give rational explanations for that object. Birds, balloons, insects, and things. Most times the rational explanation is the real answer and it's identified.

I agree with that view, that’s the reason why I normally do not use those kinds of videos for my own personal conclusions.
But over the decades I have nevertheless seen a handful of videos that I find very interesting and are not so easy to explain away with planes, birds, balloons, insects, and things.

Ectoplasm8

Now, imagine the person who took the video, didn't record it, but only had a visual sighting of that object just one time. To this day that person would more than likely still think they saw a UFO and tell that story for years after. When in fact, they didn't.

Well, I do not agree with your conclusion because you weren’t there and have therefore not seen the object yourself, so it’s very well possible that what he saw was in fact a ‘real’ UFO.

Ectoplasm8

Those account for many of the same type of people that have seen UFOs through the years. It's only when objectively viewed through the eyes of many other people is when it becomes identified.

I have together with my wife and sons seen a ‘real’ UFO myself, I did not record it either because I had no camera back then, but I am sure it was something very different then a plane, birds, balloon, insects, and things.

Ectoplasm8

Are there objects that aren't unidentifiable? Sure. Does that make those objects extraterrestrial? No.

It’s indeed impossible for us to prove that some of those objects that aren't unidentifiable belong to extraterrestrials, or non-human beings, but there is as I believe already a lot of very impressive information available that points clearly in that direction.

It’s interesting to listen to what Col. John Alexander says about it in this video.

He agreed with the view that UFOs are definitely not under or build by or under control of any human beings.

He said that around 05:40 in this video after quite some interesting and heated debate between him and lawyer Danny Sheehan.

Danny Sheehan; So what you saying is, in other words, you’re just advocating a procedural point, is that there be a neutral and professionally responsible real investigation to what these are because you have concluded, at least preliminarily, that there not under or build by or under control of any human beings.

Dr. John Alexander; I would agree with that yes.

Amazing is it not?

Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate

Ectoplasm8

According to believers, this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to our skies. These objects apparently land, abduct, implant, impregnate, crash, interact with humans, visit Earth in the past, etc.

Yes, that’s after studying this subject for many years now exactly what I believe although I must emphasize that I do not believe that women are being impregnated by direct sexual contact but by some kind of artificial insemination.

Ectoplasm8

It's unreasonable and ridiculous to demand some type of physical evidence of objects flying around in our atmosphere. However, with the number of claimed incidents mentioned above of one-on-one involvement, incidents where an object is said to land, crash, or whatever, it's not unreasonable to ask for physical evidence.

I agree, but I also learned that such evidence is immediately collected and confiscated and hidden from the eyes of the people like us by so called black ops that are installed for these kinds of happenings.
And I even understand now for why that is.

Ectoplasm8

After all, this is an 'extraordinary' claim of an alien species visiting Earth.

I agree.

Ectoplasm8

A life altering event. It would probably be the most amazing discovery in the history of man.

No doubt in my mind about that.

Ectoplasm8

Why should it be treated with so little respect and made so trite and typical? It shouldn't. That's why facts have to be demanded and some type of physical evidence shown and studied. Stories are not enough.

I agree, but as I said earlier, all the physical evidence from the UFOs themselves including the occupants is being removed right after the event, but there is still the evidence that stays in the form of Electro-Magnetic Effects, Vehicle Interference Cases, Physical Trace Cases, ,Radar Cases and those are very interesting indeed.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

“There exists in our skies, worldwide, a solid, physical phenomenon that appears to be under intelligent control and is capable of speeds, maneuverability, and luminosity beyond current known technology.”

I read the Kean book a couple of years ago. As convincing as it was, that was the last UFO book I read. In the above quoted statement, "appears" is the key word. Its a word we use when we go to see a magician do tricks or when giving a subjective description. That one word is at the crux of the phenomenon.

Well, looking to the available information it appears indeed to be under intelligent control so I do not see why you make the connection with going to see a magician do tricks, but if that’s the way you see it I will respect that.

spacevisitorI do not agree with your conclusion because you weren’t there

This “you weren’t there” argument is one of the most spurious used by UFO believers. Court cases are decided all the time by people who weren’t there. They’re called juries. Why should UFO cases be different?

The other spurious argument is “I know what I saw,” when it’s blatantly obvious that the witness didn’t know what they saw.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Well, looking to the available information it appears indeed to be under intelligent control so I do not see why you make the connection with going to see a magician do tricks, but if that’s the way you see it I will respect that.

I have no problem with people believing this either. Things can appear under intelligent control when they are not. Like 80% of people driving.
These people watching David Blaine levitate also know what they saw and believe he can levitate. He only appears to do so.

ianrid

spacevisitorI do not agree with your conclusion because you weren’t there

This “you weren’t there” argument is one of the most spurious used by UFO believers.

This “I know better what the witnesses saw” argument is one of the most spurious used by UFO non-believers.

ianrid

Court cases are decided all the time by people who weren’t there. They’re called juries.

Do you think then that that is not the way it should be done?

ianrid

The other spurious argument is “I know what I saw,” when it’s blatantly obvious that the witness didn’t know what they saw.

Can you give me a good example of that?

spacevisitor

This “I know better what the witnesses saw” argument is one of the most spurious used by UFO non-believers.

Scott Fraser: Why eyewitnesses get it wrong

When it comes to witnesses in criminal trials, the accuracy of human memory can mean the difference between life and death. Scott Fraser is an expert witness who researches what’s real and what’s selective when it comes to human memory and crime. His areas of expertise include human night vision, neuropsychopharmacology, and the effect of stress and other factors on the human mind. He has testified in criminal and civil cases throughout the U.S. in state and federal courts.

spacevisitor
Can you give me a good example of that?

Yes — because what they saw is unidentified, at least by them. That's what the U stands for in UFO.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Can you give me a good example of that?

seriously, watch the David Blaine video and study the peoples reactions. Their reactions and testimony is not unlike any other eye witness testimony. This is a good example.

ZetaRediculianseriously, watch the David Blaine video and study the peoples reactions.

Yep, they know what they saw!

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Well, looking to the available information it appears indeed to be under intelligent control so I do not see why you make the connection with going to see a magician do tricks, but if that’s the way you see it I will respect that.

I have no problem with people believing this either. Things can appear under intelligent control when they are not. Like 80% of people driving.
These people watching David Blaine levitate also know what they saw and believe he can levitate. He only appears to do so.

So you see in fact the whole UFO phenomenon the same way, it’s in your eyes or believe all based on the same principle?
Well, we have obviously different views and believe on it all then but that’s oke with me, as I said earlier I will respect your view.

reply to post by spacevisitor

So you see in fact the whole UFO phenomenon the same way, it’s in your eyes or believe all based on the same principle?
Well, we have obviously different views and believe on it all then but that’s oke with me, as I said earlier I will respect your view.

The way I see the phenomenon is that its indistinguishable from normal brain farts. That certainly doesn't mean that for every case. Rendlesham could represent an alien encounter or normal misidentification exaggerated over time. There is no real evidence for aliens but there is evidence that people misidentify. As the David Blaine video demonstrates, people can be fooled by their own eyes.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

So you see in fact the whole UFO phenomenon the same way, it’s in your eyes or believe all based on the same principle?
Well, we have obviously different views and believe on it all then but that’s oke with me, as I said earlier I will respect your view.

The way I see the phenomenon is that its indistinguishable from normal brain farts.

That’s up to you of course.

ZetaRediculian

That certainly doesn't mean that for every case. Rendlesham could represent an alien encounter or normal misidentification exaggerated over time.

That’s an interesting remark, because that shows me that you have somewhere in the back of your mind some doubts, right?

ZetaRediculian

There is no real evidence for aliens

Obviously not for you.
But as Clifford Stone said so rightly; “The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.”

ZetaRediculian

but there is evidence that people misidentify.

Of course, people do misidentify, but that doesn’t mean that all people misidentify.

ZetaRediculian

As the David Blaine video demonstrates, people can be fooled by their own eyes.

Did he fool you?

reply to post by spacevisitor

That’s an interesting remark, because that shows me that you have somewhere in the back of your mind some doubts, right?

I wouldn't call it doubts. Everything we see, hear or feel may or not represent realty. I gamble, so I call it playing the odds. Its a safe bet that aliens are not involved. Also, I never speak in absolutes.

But as Clifford Stone said so rightly; “The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.”

he's right. Absence of evidence means there is no evidence. With no evidence, you can imagine and speculate. There is nothing wrong with that. Its a creative beautiful thing to do.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

That’s an interesting remark, because that shows me that you have somewhere in the back of your mind some doubts, right?

I wouldn't call it doubts. Everything we see, hear or feel may or not represent realty. I gamble, so I call it playing the odds.

But you surely know that gambling is a risky business Right?

ZetaRediculian

Its a safe bet that aliens are not involved.

Would you really put all your money on the bank on that bet?

ZetaRediculian

But as Clifford Stone said so rightly; “The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.”

he's right. Absence of evidence means there is no evidence. With no evidence, you can imagine and speculate. There is nothing wrong with that. Its a creative beautiful thing to do.

But he is also right with that the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence dont you think?.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Would you really put all your money on the bank on that bet?

without hesitation.

But he is also right with that the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence dont you think?.

yes, the 2 statements do not equal. It means its possible which is pretty useless information.