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: 23
89
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
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?


It’s not about ‘data on a UFO’.
In this case it’s about ‘data on a lighthouse’. We’re investigating the claim that these men ALL saw the lighthouse, remember? ‘UFO’ is not a part of this claim.

The correct scientific methodology to validate a claim that these witnesses all saw the lighthouse would be to collect their testimony and check if against this claim. If you do that the only valid conclusion is that the claim is falsified by the testimony of each individual witness.

Note that falsifying the lighthouse claim does not automatically mean that the ET claim is supported. It also does not mean that none of these men ever saw the lighthouse, but this was not the claim.

Skeptics often mix up the validation of their own “I know what you saw” claim and a claim about extraterrestrial visitation. These are two different things entirely.
However, both need to be treated with the same (scientific) methodology.

Instead of using the data to investigate a claim of extraterrestrial visitation, skeptics often use an unsubstantiated counterclaim. They do that because the data is inconclusive and hence does not exclude the extraterrestrial hypothesis entirely. This is very unsatisfying to a skeptic so a counterclaim is invented and the data is made to fit this counterclaim in an attempt to falsify the extraterrestrial hypothesis entirely.

In a sense skeptics and believers are alike. They both use the same pseudo-scientific methodology and are mainly driven by a desire to prove they are right. That is why a discussion with them is pointless.




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 



The correct scientific methodology to validate a claim that these witnesses all saw the lighthouse would be to collect their testimony and check if against this claim. If you do that the only valid conclusion is that the claim is falsified by the testimony of each individual witness.

The only real valid piece of evidence is the "Halt tape". The facts have been clearly laid out that what they saw at certain points was, in all probability, the lighthouse. Someone here on ATS claims to have studied "witness testimony". Let me see if wants to weigh in.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

The GUT

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.



Yes GUT there are clues there was something more to all of this than just a UFO or a lighthouse.There are other possibilities. The witness testimony hints at tinkering. There is even circumstantial documented evidence and scientific data to suggest the causes of the events were neither sitting on the Orfordness shoreline nor traversing time and space. All without of course proving beyond doubt what really went on at Bentwaters/Woodbridge.

So in cases like this , it's difficult to see the trees in the woods for the lighthouse...or indeed the lighthouse in the forest....






posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 

It's comparing facts with a hypothesis. The fact being the Orford lighthouse exists. The fact that it exists within view of the "landing" site. The fact that the frequency of the flash is at 5 second intervals as proven by the specs sheet and by videos. All of these are absolutes and verifiable facts that are directly involved with this incident by way of location of the lighthouse.

Alien/UFO involvement is a hypothesis and assumption. This is an overall statement to begin with. We have zero physical evidence, after decades of searching, of alien or future human visitation. There's not even a foundation to build the Rendlesham case upon. As I've said, this case would need overwhelming physical evidence to give equal time to the lighthouse. And it does not. There's no absolutes and no verifiable facts in regards to this. How can we seriously include an alien/future/UFO answer or conclusion equally, given that fact?

Skeptics are actually dealing in factual evidence, i.e lighthouse beam. While believers are dealing in assumptions, hypothesis, and overall beliefs, i.e. landing UFO.

================================================

You're again trying to force fit your belief into this case. Just as unsuccessfully trying to force fit this "equilateral" triangle into a landing site. If you stand 10 feet up, tilt your head 25 degrees to the right, and lean back at a 45 degree angle, you can get this triangle to be equilateral. That's an exaggeration of course, but it's to make a point. You're forcing things in order to try and make them a fact. You purposely ignore rational explanations of forester marks, animal scraping, and random marks forming a triangle, to believe this was something strange. The facts are right in front of you, but you want to believe so badly that you forgo facts for fantasy.

================================================

Here, I'll prove the point you won't accept anything rational. I'll go a step further with his tape and address the "blinking eye". The photograph below is of the Orford Ness lighthouse lens. Notice the shape and outline of it with the circular center. Now, look at the photo below it showing how a lens could appear to have a black center. Combine Halt's comment about looking at this light through the scope as it looking like an eye with a black center or pupil and winking at you. Also that the "flash" (his words) was so bright it burns your eyes. Rational explanation? He was looking at the lighthouse beam through the starscope with the light appearing with a black center, as in the photo below, the light flashing so bright it burns your eyes, 3,000,000 cd lighthouse beam, and the blinking or flashing, the 5 second sweep of the lighthouse beam. So, rational explanation of it being the lighthouse? Or rational explanation that it was some UFO?


Sequenced screen shots from the video below:
YouTube

Please address each separate comment.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I also want to point out that the lighthouse had three smaller lights down the tower below the main lens. A red light that pointed north, a green that pointed south and another red that pointed south also. These lights were static and weren't as bright as the main lens, but could be seen for 15 or so miles.

Prior to 1914, coloured sectors were shown from the lantern room using coloured shades in front of the light and this meant that the shaded areas would have shared the same characteristic of the main light. Since then, a red light - visible for 14 nautical miles - has shone north to mark the Sizewell Bank. A red and green light shine south, the green light shines over hollesley bay, for 14 nautical miles and the red shines over whiting hook and whiting bank visible for 15 nautical miles.


It's conceivable that the beam of the lighthouse could pick up that reflecting red light somewhat on the arriving sweep of the light. Only for the red to be washed out with the direct intensity of the beam. If you notice in the photos in my screen grabs above and the six screen grabs below, there is a red tinge to the light as it begins to sweep around. There's also a green tinge as it comes towards the left. This could be the explanation of Halt saying initially he saw the light as being red. I suppose it's possible that these are only video artifacts, but seems to be consistent with the color of the lower lights.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Ectoplasm8
reply to post by Guest101
 

It's comparing facts with a hypothesis. The fact being the Orford lighthouse exists. The fact that it exists within view of the "landing" site. The fact that the frequency of the flash is at 5 second intervals as proven by the specs sheet and by videos.
All of these are absolutes and verifiable facts that are directly involved with this incident by way of location of the lighthouse.


As you are trying to compare all the facts Ectoplasm8, which is a very good thing to do of course, do you believe therefore that the Orford lighthouse could also have been responsible for what Halt described on his tape here?


LT COLONEL HALT: 3.05: We see strange err, strobe like flashes to the err ... almost sporadic, but there's definitely something there, some kind of phenomena. 3.05: At about err... 10 degrees horizon err directly north, we got two strange objects, err ...half moon shape, dancing about with colored lights on them. but err. it has to be about 5-10 miles out, maybe less. The half moons have now turned into full circles as though there was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.
(Break in tape)
LT COLONEL HALT: 3.15: Now we've got an object about ten degrees directly south...
SGT NEVILLES: There's one to the left.
LT COLONEL HALT: 10 degrees off the horizon, and the ones to the north are moving, one's moving away from us.
SGT NEVILLES: It's moving out fast.
LT COLONEL HALT: They're moving out fast.
MASTER SGT BALL: There's one on the right heading away too.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they're both heading north. Hey, here he comes from the south; he's coming in toward us now.
MASTER SERGEANT BALL: #.
LT COLONEL HALT: Now were observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.
[Excited shouting in the background]
MASTER SGT BALL: Look at the colors... #
LT COLONEL HALT: This is unreal.
Break in tape
LT COLONEL HALT: 3.30: And the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it's loosing a little bit of altitude. We're turning around and heading back toward the base. The object to the sou... the object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.


www.ufocasebook.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


As I said earlier, Ectoplasm8, I will not waste my time on silly theories about lighthouses and stars. If you read the timeline posted earlier it is blatantly obvious this theory does not stand a chance.

Since you have put a lot of effort in your earlier posts I will just devote this one post to it and then I'm done with it.

There are four arguments that are used over and over again in defense of the lighthouse theory:
1. On the first night the three men saw a beacon light and it took them some time to identify it as a lighthouse.
2. On the third night there is the famous 5 second interval on Halt’s tape.
3. On the third night there is the compass heading of 110 degrees.
4. On the third night the eye blinking with a dark center is seen through the star scope.

1. Is a nonsense argument, because the men saw something else besides the lighthouse. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who reads their original witness statements.

2. Is a shaky argument, since it rests on the assumption that the light was NOT visible between the utterances “there it is again“, and “watch, straight ahead off my flashlight there sir, there it is “. Nothing on the tape suggests this.
There IS a clear suggestion on the tape that the light was not visible between the utterances “you just saw a light?” and “there it is AGAIN”, but this is an EIGHT second interval during which the flash of the lighthouse should have been visible once. Why doen't anyone mention it?
So the match in timing is shaky at best. But it gets even shakier when we consider the reported color of the light: RED. Yes, it is yellow later on the tape, but that was during an episode where it was closer and became brighter. What happens if you brighten a red light? Right, it gets a yellowish orange color.

3. Is a nonsense argument, because the lighthouse was at a magnetic bearing of 97 degrees in 1980. So you have to assume that someone from the army made a big mistake of more than 10 degrees when reading a compass. These types of mistakes can be lethal in combat.

4. Is a nonsense argument, since ANY bright spherical light source would saturate the image intensifier of the star scope in its center. Saturation causes a blackout.

So of the four arguments, only one is left standing, albeit very weak.

But these four arguments are based on cherry-picking small fragments of the tape and the witness statements. If you take the whole contents of the tape and the witness statements into account, it becomes pretty clear that the lighthouse (and stars) theory is terribly at odds with what is seen.

So then the fifth argument kicks in: The witnesses are lying to cover their asses for a big mistake.

Well, if YOU were in the army, what would you rather report back after your trip in the woods:
1. Sir, we have investigated the reported fire in the forest and are glad to report it was just a lighthouse light.
2. Sir, we just saw the strangest things up there, and think we saw UFO’s!

I think you know what to pick..
So the fifth argument is nonsense, too … Halt had plenty of time to walk at leisure towards the light source and identify it as a lighthouse. He was in the forest for three hours. He would have been the hero who was able to debunk all the nonsense going on at the base and have everyone get back to their duties. His boss would be proud and thankful.

What Halt did was actually very courageous. He reported UFO’s because he saw UFO’s, and put his career at risk for that. The same is true for the men that went out the first night. They, too, could have easily reported the lighthouse as the culprit and be done with it.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Guest101
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


I will not waste my time on silly theories about lighthouses and stars.


But you'll waste time on even sillier theories about aliens and UFO's.

I think this one line best illustrates your "open mindedness".


The lighthouse and stars were, are, and will be there for anyone to verify for themselves. The Aliens and UFO's... not so much.


As I said before, I was on the fence before reading this thread, but I can't imagine how this incident could be more thoroughly debunked at this point.
edit on 14-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



As I said before, I was on the fence before reading this thread

same. I actually thought the lighthouse explanation was a huge stretch when I first read about a couple of years ago. But now that facts have been laid out, its a no brainer. I also would be inclined to believe what Gut proposes but I just don't see this as anything more than an embellished story. That and I won't waste time with anyone that doesn't agree with me.

any others you are on the fence about?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2
 



As I said before, I was on the fence before reading this thread

same. I actually thought the lighthouse explanation was a huge stretch when I first read about a couple of years ago. But now that facts have been laid out, its a no brainer. I also would be inclined to believe what Gut proposes but I just don't see this as anything more than an embellished story. That and I won't waste time with anyone that doesn't agree with me.

any others you are on the fence about?


JAL1628, Cash Landrum.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 



but this is an EIGHT second interval during which the flash of the lighthouse should have been visible once. Why doen't anyone mention it?


assuming 8 seconds: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

you can have 2 flashes: at 1 and 5, and 2 and 7, and 3 and 8. The only way not to have 2 flashes is at 4 and 5.

its not mentioned because its obvious? Am I misunderstanding you?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



JAL1628, Cash Landrum


I like the cloud theory on JAL. Have to look at the Johnny cash one.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

draknoir2


But you'll waste time on even sillier theories about aliens and UFO's.

I think this one line best illustrates your "open mindedness".


The lighthouse and stars were, are, and will be there for anyone to verify for themselves. The Aliens and UFO's... not so much.


As I said before, I was on the fence before reading this thread, but I can't imagine how this incident could be more thoroughly debunked at this point.




I think the probability of this being aliens is fairly close to zero. I also think the lighthouse played a part (along with the other celestial events going on) in deceiving the men to some extent. But could it really be the main reason why so many military men were searching Rendlesham forest for hours on end?


So my conclusion is that it wasn't aliens.


However I have never heard a good all encompassing theory to actually what DID happen on the bases over the whole of that period.


What did Gerry Harris see plunge into the forest and rise out of it?

There is no way that Adrian Bustinza and Larry Warren saw a lighthouse sitting in a field 10 yards in front of them.

The blue lights seen on both nights are not really satisfactorily explained.

What were airmen doing with lightalls off-base during Boxing Day evening before Halt went out?

Why does it seem there was partial evacuation at Woodbridge?

What did Steve La Plume witness gliding silently over his head in early Jan 1981?


It all seems to me that something odd was going on at the Twin Bases and the military knew about it.

Perhaps it was actually an experiment?




In which case there is no need to argue about trigonometry at the landing site, the level of radiation or even the optical properties of the Orfordness lighthouse.


But who knows?









edit on 14/2/14 by mirageman because: wrong words



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Guest101
It’s not about ‘data on a UFO’.
In this case it’s about ‘data on a lighthouse’. We’re investigating the claim that these men ALL saw the lighthouse, remember? ‘UFO’ is not a part of this claim.

The correct scientific methodology to validate a claim that these witnesses all saw the lighthouse would be to collect their testimony and check if against this claim. If you do that the only valid conclusion is that the claim is falsified by the testimony of each individual witness.

Note that falsifying the lighthouse claim does not automatically mean that the ET claim is supported. It also does not mean that none of these men ever saw the lighthouse, but this was not the claim.

Skeptics often mix up the validation of their own “I know what you saw” claim and a claim about extraterrestrial visitation. These are two different things entirely.
However, both need to be treated with the same (scientific) methodology.

Instead of using the data to investigate a claim of extraterrestrial visitation, skeptics often use an unsubstantiated counterclaim. They do that because the data is inconclusive and hence does not exclude the extraterrestrial hypothesis entirely. This is very unsatisfying to a skeptic so a counterclaim is invented and the data is made to fit this counterclaim in an attempt to falsify the extraterrestrial hypothesis entirely.

In a sense skeptics and believers are alike. They both use the same pseudo-scientific methodology and are mainly driven by a desire to prove they are right. That is why a discussion with them is pointless.

QFT

Oh my gosh, luv ya! That's what I mean all the time, these are my remarks and that yes 'I am neither a skeptic, nor a believer' but I prefer being objective of possibilities. You shot it straight in the center. I could go on and on for many 'debunkers' that do not even qualify for skeptics, as in they are more of 'scoffers' but it would be a waste.

There needs to be more like you... and well.. me. This is a true scientific way of thinking and no one even with the job of scientist would be representing that job if not thinking so. Someone who sees that both sides have their mind made up and should be neither of the two. I've argued more times with Skeptics because they are the arrogant and bashful ones but I also don't even bother replying to too ridiculous statements of believers, yet alone Moon/Mars rocks that are 'houses, yeti, snakes, skeletons, raccoons, and whatever else). And that I am saying with lately (in the past year) having become a lot more skeptical about THE TRUE CASES of UFOs and their much fewer number -

And that I am saying with absolutely no certainty of 'yes alien UFOs are real' - I still cannot accept it but unlike skeptics, for me 'Evidence is not enough/hidden/shows nothing' does not mean a certain NO just like it means not a certain YES. And there is plenty of reasons to be open for possibilities, though I admit, one has to be careful even with the "BEST" UFO cases like Rendlesham forest - looks like even that can be a tad misleading and full of disinfo and even have nothing real about 'aliens' if such ever came here.

This case is doomed for trying to solve it, I am leaning towards man-made craft by USAF, or other that the UK didn't know about.
edit on 14-2-2014 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 



It all seems to me that something odd was going on at the Twin Bases and the military knew about it.

That the military would be conducting operations and not tell their people so that they gather information on reactions seems like it would be routine.

maybe they were testing a new type of amphetamine and it didn't go so well. The US confessed to giving their military amphetamines during wartime after a friendly fire incident a number of years ago. In my 20s it would have been a no brainer to pop a go pill at 1am and chase a ufo especially if was part of my job!

yes, not every light can be accounted for. Its dark, your in the woods, you see a light, it looks eerie.

If there was an experiment or some kind of test or whatever, I just don't see anything that makes it seem over the top. I would guess that type of thing was fairly common, this could have just happend around the same time someone said they saw a UFO.

in your opinion, what do you think was the strangest unexplained thing that occurred?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

draknoir2JAL1628, Cash Landrum.

For Cash–Landrum, see here
badufos.blogspot.co.uk...
Totally oversold, like Rendlesham.

BTW, if anyone still thinks there was anything unexplained about the Phoenix Lights, see here from the same source
badufos.blogspot.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Guest101
 


As I said earlier, Ectoplasm8, I will not waste my time on silly theories about lighthouses and stars.


As opposed to the more rational and realistic explanations of human beings from the future or aliens from another planet? I guess you fail to find the "silly" in that? As Draknoir2 pointed out, you (and other believers) claim that skeptics/debunkers or whatever... are the ones that are closed minded. You've done a good job of showing it's actually the opposite. You come to this case with a preformed belief refusing to allow a single rational explanation for any part of this case. Maybe it's your refusal to allow yourself to think maybe you are wrong.


2. Is a shaky argument, since it rests on the assumption that the light was NOT visible between the utterances “there it is again“, and “watch, straight ahead off my flashlight there sir, there it is “. Nothing on the tape suggests this.
There IS a clear suggestion on the tape that the light was not visible between the utterances “you just saw a light?” and “there it is AGAIN”, but this is an EIGHT second interval during which the flash of the lighthouse should have been visible once. Why doen't anyone mention it?
So the match in timing is shaky at best. But it gets even shakier when we consider the reported color of the light: RED. Yes, it is yellow later on the tape, but that was during an episode where it was closer and became brighter. What happens if you brighten a red light? Right, it gets a yellowish orange color.

This argument is brought up in the YouTube comments section also and is flat out wrong.

These are the facts about that section:
HALT TAPE

12:52-12:58


Halt- "You just saw a light? Slow down.. where, where?"
Nevilles- "Right in this position here... straight ahead, in between the trees" (brings Halt to the spot he saw the light- AT 12:56)

12:59


Nevilles- "There it is again"

That's a 3 second time span between positioning to see the light with Halt and first direct acknowledgement of the light. 12:56-12:59. Not 8

12:59


Nevilles- "Straight ahead.. in between the trees... There it is again"

13:04


-Nevilles- "Watch off my flashlight... There it is"
-Halt "I see it too"

That's a 5 second time span between the first direct acknowledgement and second of the light.

This "8 second interval" (actually 7 sec) is from when Halt asks "You just saw a light", beginning at 12:52 until the end of his question at 12:55 and until 12:59 when Nevilles says "There it is." Nevilles brings Halt to his position, because Halt apparently can't see it from his persective, and points to the area at 12:56. NOT 12:52. Your theory is wrong with this 8 second time span.

Listen to the tape again.
=============================================

I already addressed the red hue above.

You're involved in this case with blinders on. Trying your best to fit every detail and part of this incident into your mold of what you want to believe. In turn, you miss out of what other suggestions are out there with your stubbornness. I don't think anyone expects to suggest a hint of anything rational to someone like yourself. But, others are open to it.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   

mirageman

I think the probability of this being aliens is fairly close to zero.


Hi mirageman, here are some of my thoughts about it.
I personally believe that the most plausible theory about what the intelligence could have been behind this case is that it belonged to non-humans.
The reason for why I believe that is entirely based on the extraordinary and clearly extremely advanced technology that was being displayed by all those objects/crafts in all the events as seen by many witnesses.
And even more because of the presence of those occupants or beings as described by Larry Warren.


mirageman

I also think the lighthouse played a part (along with the other celestial events going on) in deceiving the men to some extent. But could it really be the main reason why so many military men were searching Rendlesham forest for hours on end?


I believe that the lighthouse was doing were it was designed for to do, emit light as an aid to navigation for maritime pilots at sea and that it had played no decisive part whatsoever in none of the events of this case .


mirageman

However I have never heard a good all encompassing theory to actually what DID happen on the bases over the whole of that period.


What’s indeed so remarkable about this UFO case is that it was played out during a number of different events over a three night period and that is for as far as I know it correct never been seen before in such a major UFO case.


mirageman
What did Gerry Harris see plunge into the forest and rise out of it?
There is no way that Adrian Bustinza and Larry Warren saw a lighthouse sitting in a field 10 yards in front of them.
The blue lights seen on both nights are not really satisfactorily explained.
What were airmen doing with lightalls off-base during Boxing Day evening before Halt went out?
Why does it seem there was partial evacuation at Woodbridge?
What did Steve La Plume witness gliding silently over his head in early Jan 1981?


All very good questions indeed.


mirageman

It all seems to me that something odd was going on at the Twin Bases and the military knew about it.


Because of some sayings from witnesses I also have that impression that some of the officers seem to have acted on certain moments as if they already had some earlier experience with the phenomenon.


mirageman

Perhaps it was actually an experiment?


I cannot imagine myself in any way that the US top military brass would conduct whatever kind of experiments on a base and especially in a foreign country which had as it seems a huge storage of nuclear ordnance.

edit on 15/2/14 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



I cannot imagine myself in any way that the US top military brass would conduct whatever kind of experiments on a base and especially in a foreign country which had as it seems a huge storage of nuclear ordnance.

Maybe, maybe not. Vets feel abandoned after secret drug experiments



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



I cannot imagine myself in any way that the US top military brass would conduct whatever kind of experiments on a base and especially in a foreign country which had as it seems a huge storage of nuclear ordnance.

Maybe, maybe not. Vets feel abandoned after secret drug experiments


No doubt in my mind that the military has conducted and is most likely still conducting all kind of experiments on soldiers and non-soldiers.
Reminds me of what kind of horrible experiences the Nazi’s did.







 
89
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join