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

Perhaps interesting for some here, here is as it seems to me a new video about the Rendlesham case, at least in the first part of this video.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Thanks for posting that Spacevisitor it also has another officially documented case , Shag Harbor following that video.
Having watched it I was a little disappointed with it.

- It could not have been daylight when Penniston left the base. Probably a minor point compared to the rest of it.
- As far as I know Cabansag did not stay with the Jeep he was fairly close to Burroughs and Penniston although maybe a little further back.
- The video totally ignores anything afterwards, not even a mention of the following 48 hours events.
- It goes completely with Penniston's new director's cut of the incident. Something I am highly dubious of.

I did once consider Rendlesham a nailed on UFO event back when I was younger but now I believe there is still an interesting story there but it's more likely that the military were up to something rather than an ET encounter. Be it some kind of accident, weird experiment or military action that needed concealment and containment. Hence a bunch of servicemen whose stories are inconsistent, confusing and stretching believability. The events in between the first night and Halt's exploratory ramble may be the key to what was going on.

I don't believe aliens come visiting every night of the week, have the ability to speak our languages ,use telepathy and can breath our atmosphere with absolutely no problem at all. Our own medical equipment outstrips the technology often reported in abduction cases.

However that doesn't mean I don't think there isn't a chance that extra-terrestrial life isn't out there and it might have even been here. I just think that it's like searching for a needle in a haystack amongst so many cases of misidentification, too many attention seekers and fraudsters muddying the waters and even the military using UFO stories to mis-direct the public.

I suppose Rendlesham remains a faint possibility of being ET but I am not really convinced.

reply to post by ianrid

ianrid

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.

So you think what they saw was a UFO then?

mirageman
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Thanks for posting that Spacevisitor it also has another officially documented case , Shag Harbor following that video.
Having watched it I was a little disappointed with it.

No thanks mirageman, and yes you are right, the video is indeed disappointing.

mirageman
I did once consider Rendlesham a nailed on UFO event back when I was younger but now I believe there is still an interesting story there but it's more likely that the military were up to something rather than an ET encounter. Be it some kind of accident, weird experiment or military action that needed concealment and containment.

I think what happened three weeks after the RFI, when Palmer and LaPlume reported strange lights from East Gate again, tells a lot about the nature of the incidents three weeks earlier:

This story of LaPlume is confirmed by Halt in LEAG, during his interview with Robbins and Warren.

Laplume: “After the arrival of Col. Halt, the stream of officers and higher ranking personnel kept coming. There was the Deputy Base commander, I believe of Woodbridge base, who brought his wife and teen-aged son. Eventually, the recently promoted General Williams, our Wing commander, came. I was told by Lt Englund not to be nervous, but he had just been made General. Report my post as all safe and secure and simply tell him what I saw.
I did just that and then everyone but Palmer and I jumped in an official Air Force station wagon and went out the East gate toward the forest. We were left with a starlight scope and told to let them know if we saw anything.
When this was going down I was beside myself. Why did all these people show up? Why were this officer’s wife and kid here on official Air Force business? Why did she have a 35mm Nikon camera and make the comment. “I hope we get to see one!”

This event tells me that the RFI was not perceived as a threat and was not some obscure military experiment or cover-up; otherwise the deputy base commander would not bring his wife and son with a camera to spot UFO’s as soon as strange lights were reported again.
I also wonder if this event could be the source of rumours that Williams was in the forest on the third night of the RFI.

reply to post by Guest101


I was going to take a break from all of this

La Plume's story is actually one that cannot be so easily explained and the sighting coincides with the approximate time Halt was typing up his memo. As to what it was well Steve himself doesn't know so how would I?

mirageman
reply to post by Guest101

 

I was going to take a break from all of this

La Plume's story is actually one that cannot be so easily explained and the sighting coincides with the approximate time Halt was typing up his memo. As to what it was well Steve himself doesn't know so how would I?

If I recall correctly: Hasn't La Plume suspected--and proffered--that heads have been tinkered with? I like Steve and his apparent honesty. Is anyone familiar with his connection to Frank Camper's cointelpro "merc school?"

It raises some interesting questions for those that investigate rather than pontificate. Jus' sayin'.

The problem I see with both hardcore believers and hardcore skeptics is that they ignore the totality of information and, as such, discredit themselves as thinkers of note. Just my opinion...but one that is certainly more inclusive of ALL of the extant information.

reply to post by The GUT


You can include more information along different lines. Since this was a UFO event it makes sense to look for common patterns with other UFO events.

In 1989, during the well-known Belgian flap, several police officers followed a triangular object and saw it up close. It flew over their heads at a very slow pace. They saw a very bright white light on each corner and in the center a strange orange-yellow pulsing light phenomenon that made jerky movements.
The craft was silent, apart from a humming sound.

They followed it until it hovered over a lake. There they saw faint beams of light coming from its sides.
"On each side of the object there was a kind of laser beam, and a ball that was leaving the object and coming back, as if the ball was trying to measure something.”

A ‘ball’ that was probing the environment; ‘laser beams’ - sounds familiar.

Here are some videos shot during that period. They match the description of the police officers: Three white lights and a jerky moving pulsing light in the middle:
ufologie.patrickgross.org...
ufologie.patrickgross.org...


The total story can be found here (note that some links need to be corrected with the new prefix of this site):
ufologie.patrickgross.org...

reply to post by spacevisitor

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.

My point being, people misidentify things all the time. As proven by the videos posted on this forum. It's only after something is rationally looked at by different people, is when it can be identified. We don't have that luxury with cases years older or cases where a video camera wasn't present. A video of every single UFO sighting, like the thousands a year reported on MUFON, would cut those claimed UFO numbers drastically.

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?

See, you're proving my point I was making to FireMoon. It's associating testimony or opinions from high ranking military employees, doctors, or someone with a title, as helping to solidify a case. Without solid physical evidence, it doesn't matter who the person is, it's still only an opinion or belief. It doesn't make the case any more of a fact. There's no UFO "expert". And as of this moment, there's no solid foundation to build any UFO case upon.

J Allen Hynek is quoted all the time on this forum. He was as qualified as anyone to find answers for UFOs. He had access to records and did interviews with some of these witnesses. His conclusion was no conclusion. Only that the phenomenon should be studied further. Now, being a proponent of UFOs and thoroughly studying for years up until his death in the 80's, ultimately he still did not have an answer. An opinion isn't a fact.

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.

How believable is that scenario though? You would have to believe every crash or human/alien involvement was done only on government property and in front of these high ranking government officials. Also, the entire governments of the world would have to be in cahoots with each other and involved. Aliens visiting isn't going to be a one country exclusive event. Also, if you have one alien visiting, you more than likely will have more. It's far too convenient of an excuse and not realistic. It fits perfectly into this secret little UFO conspiracy, but according to all the UFO stories told by believers, UFOs are not secret, aren't hiding, and don't just hang out around military facilities.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

Ectoplasm8
It's associating testimony or opinions from high ranking military employees, doctors, or someone with a title, as helping to solidify a case. Without solid physical evidence, it doesn't matter who the person is, it's still only an opinion or belief.

So if witness testimonies or opinions no matter the people who tell it have no value for you just as the evidence about Electro-Magnetic Effects, Vehicle Interference Cases, Physical Trace Cases, and Radar Cases, what kind of physical evidence do you want to see that would change your point of view then?

Ectoplasm8

Aliens visiting isn't going to be a one country exclusive event.

Agree.

Ectoplasm8

Also, if you have one alien visiting, you more than likely will have more.

Agree.

Ectoplasm8

according to all the UFO stories told by believers, UFOs are not secret, aren't hiding, and don't just hang out around military facilities.

It surely looks that way.

Guest101Here are some videos shot during that period. They match the description of the police officers: Three white lights and a jerky moving pulsing light in the middle:

But they look just like an aircraft. Can you explain why they are not? (See below for the solution.)

I note that you omit links to investigations that have largely solved the Belgium sightings, such as these
www.caelestia.be...
www.skepticreport.com...
home.comcast.net...

As with the Cosford and Rendlesham cases, despite having a known solution, the Belgium case is still presented among the top ten unidentifieds, no doubt because, like Hans, the believers are impressed by the fact that there are military and/or police witnesses. And, as we all know, the military and police never make mistakes, do they? [Irony alert.]

The following quote comes from the first of those links above:

The images, shown on television in many countries, depict the now well-known configuration of three white lights and a pulsing red light in the centre. SOBEPS investigators suspected that the witness had filmed an airliner preparing to land at Zaventem airfield. It further turned out that the man had encountered "UFOs" and "space beings" on other occasions as well, both before and after March 31.

[Image borrowed from www.geocities.com/Area51/Meteor/1995]
Black and white still from the famous Alfarano film taken in Brussels on the night of March 30-31, 1990. There is a consensus among Belgian ufologists that the film shows an airliner. The small dot in the centre is a red flashing light, presumably the plane's anti-collision light.

As in any modern UFO flap, many more videos turned up. The majority of the images show luminous dots filmed against a plain dark background, most of them readily identifiable as aircraft lights or bright stars or planets. In one instance the reflection of sunlight in distant windows was taken for a low hovering UFO. Other strange night lights turned out to be generated by imperfections in the auto focus system of early generation camcorders. Many of these early systems had problems focusing on a small point of light. This often resulted in photographic artefacts by which bright stars or planets are transformed into large semi-transparent discs, sometimes with peculiar indentations.

Ectoplasm8
My point being, people misidentify things all the time. As proven by the videos posted on this forum.

In the Belgian case I posted above the witnesses (police officers) gave a very accurate description of the craft, as can be verified from the videos:

“It moved slowly at a low altitude, right over their heads. At that moment they were almost blinded by three bright sources of light. They had no doubts that this was a solid craft. In its center they noticed a bizarre red-yellowish luminance. It was floating, spinning (both horizontally and vertically), and pulsating as if it was moved through a transparent bowel in a ‘staccato’ manner. They also saw clearly now that the object was in fact a huge dull triangle with a white light pointing downwards at every corner.”

Videos:
ufologie.patrickgross.org...
ufologie.patrickgross.org...

An experimental psychologist working for NASA, an expert on human factors and human perception, also started off with the opinion that UFO’s were simply misperceptions. Later he had to admit he was wrong:


(Ian, I learned one thing over the years: I’d rather use my precious time studying the data instead of wasting it discussing crappy explanations from skeptics – so don’t even bother).

reply to post by Guest101

(Ian, I learned one thing over the years: I’d rather use my precious time studying the data instead of wasting it discussing crappy explanations from skeptics – so don’t even bother).

OK then...

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Guest101

 

(Ian, I learned one thing over the years: I’d rather use my precious time studying the data instead of wasting it discussing crappy explanations from skeptics – so don’t even bother).

OK then...

The basic reason is a difference in methodology.

Scientific methodology: If the data doesn’t match the theory, reject the theory.
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the theory, reject the data.

A rational discussion with people who do not play by the scientific rules is futile. It’s like having a discussion with religious fanatics.

Rejecting the data is always done using the same recipe by the way:
- If it originates from eye witnesses, discredit them, suggest they were misinterpreting things, or even suggest they are lying.
- If it originates from instruments, suggest the instrument was malfunctioning, wrongly used, or not suitable to make the reported measurements.

Then cherry-pick whatever is needed from the data to back up your ‘explanation’ (like using a still photo from a video when the crux is the jerky movement of the center light while the other ones are steady).

It’s all very predictable and works fine for the other non-believers, but it doesn’t contribute a lot to science…

reply to post by Guest101

Rejecting the data is always done using the same recipe by the way:
- If it originates from eye witnesses, discredit them, suggest they were misinterpreting things, or even suggest they are lying.
- If it originates from instruments, suggest the instrument was malfunctioning, wrongly used, or not suitable to make the reported measurements.

Do people report things in the sky they consider UFOs? Are there any cases of where these UFO's are then identified positively as something else? Absolutely. Do the people reporting these UFO's that are later identified report them with the same enthusiasm and descriptions? yes absolutely. Is this data ignored by people who want believe UFOs are alien space ships? Of course.

There are hundreds of web sites that have hundreds of fantastic UFO cases. None of these websites contain any cases where a UFO was later positively identified as a misidentification. Why? That is important information because it provides a "baseline" but it is tossed out. Its like only posting your A's on the fridge and not the Bs and Cs.

Do radars fail and give false positives? sure. Do people lie? yes. Has anything ever been positively identified as alien? no.

So what you see as "rejecting data" is an attempt to fill in the missing data. And in statistics you do, in fact, "reject data".

For example, Halt being the only one reporting "red" could be considered statistically insignificant.

reply to post by Guest101


Well said Guest101, you hit in my opinion the nails right on their heads. .

Guest101

The basic reason is a difference in methodology.

Scientific methodology: If the data doesn’t match the theory, reject or modify the theory.
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the claim, reject the claim.
Believer methodology: If the data doesn’t match the belief, reject the data.

Fixed it for you.

draknoir2

Guest101

The basic reason is a difference in methodology.

Scientific methodology: If the data doesn’t match the theory, reject or modify the theory.
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the claim, reject the claim.
Believer methodology: If the data doesn’t match the belief, reject the data.

Fixed it for you.

edit on 12-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Let’s test your theory scientifically:

Witness 1: “there was a red light blinking on and off 5 to 10 sec intervals and a blue light that was being for the most part steady.”
Witness 2: “The lights were red and blue the red one above the blue one and they were flashing on and off.”
Witness 3: “While we walked, each one of us could see the lights. Blue, red, white, and yellow. The beacon light turned out to be the yellow light.”
Witness 4: “There was a red light on top and there were several blue lights on the bottom.”
Witness 5: “Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.”

Claim: They all saw the yellow lighthouse light.

Scientific methodology: The reported lights do not match the lighthouse light, so reject the lighthouse claim.

Skeptic methodology: The reported lights do not match the lighthouse light, so reject the data of witness 1, 2, 3, and 4 as misinterpretations and then reject the data of witness 5 by saying that only one witness reporting red is not statistically significant.

Your theory:
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the claim, reject the claim.

Scientific methodology: Your theory does not match the data and must be rejected.

See how science works?

Guest101

draknoir2

Guest101

The basic reason is a difference in methodology.

Scientific methodology: If the data doesn’t match the theory, reject or modify the theory.
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the claim, reject the claim.
Believer methodology: If the data doesn’t match the belief, reject the data.

Fixed it for you.

edit on 12-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Let’s test your theory scientifically:

Witness 1: “there was a red light blinking on and off 5 to 10 sec intervals and a blue light that was being for the most part steady.”
Witness 2: “The lights were red and blue the red one above the blue one and they were flashing on and off.”
Witness 3: “While we walked, each one of us could see the lights. Blue, red, white, and yellow. The beacon light turned out to be the yellow light.”
Witness 4: “There was a red light on top and there were several blue lights on the bottom.”
Witness 5: “Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.”

Claim: They all saw the yellow lighthouse light.

Scientific methodology: The reported lights do not match the lighthouse light, so reject the lighthouse claim.

Skeptic methodology: The reported lights do not match the lighthouse light, so reject the data of witness 1, 2, 3, and 4 as misinterpretations and then reject the data of witness 5 by saying that only one witness reporting red is not statistically significant.

Your theory:
Skeptic methodology: If the data doesn’t match the claim, reject the claim.

Scientific methodology: Your theory does not match the data and must be rejected.

See how science works?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Guest101 because: typo

Let me help you out with your confusion:

da·ta
noun plural but singular or plural in construction, often attributive \ˈdā-tə, ˈda- also ˈdä-\

: facts or information used usually to calculate, analyze, or plan something

tes·ti·mo·ny
noun \ˈtes-tə-ˌmō-nē\

: something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth

reply to post by Guest101

Witness 1: “there was a red light blinking on and off 5 to 10 sec intervals and a blue light that was being for the most part steady.”
Witness 2: “The lights were red and blue the red one above the blue one and they were flashing on and off.”
Witness 3: “While we walked, each one of us could see the lights. Blue, red, white, and yellow. The beacon light turned out to be the yellow light.”
Witness 4: “There was a red light on top and there were several blue lights on the bottom.”
Witness 5: “Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.”

Im confused. would witness 3 be the one that downloaded the binary code directly into his brain?

Skeptic methodology: The reported lights do not match the lighthouse light, so reject the data of witness 1, 2, 3, and 4 as misinterpretations and then reject the data of witness 5 by saying that only one witness reporting red is not statistically significant.

So the correct scientific methodology would be to mix up all the "testimony" over the course of a series of events, treat it as one and call it "data" on a ufo?