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

page: 34
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 03:17 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Just wanted to signup to talk about an aspect of Rendalsham I've never seen examined. namely the artificial nature of the shadows in Larry and Adrian's encounter with the ship and 'lifeform'.

The details that Larry recounts about the incident are so congruent with an attempt to generate a 'mixed reality' computer rendering that the event cannot have been a false memory or hypnotic suggestion.

Larry mentions that their shadows fell on the craft as they walked to and around it. He also mentions that the shadows were sluggish and lagged behind their movements slightly.

this description suggests an attempt at real time shadow generation either on the surface of the object or as part of a projection.

Why would anyone want to generate artificial shadows? To make a less than realistic or incongruous object blend in with its surroundings. The giveaway is that the shadows Larry described were sluggish, or in computer graphics speak ,the systems latency wasn't fast enough to be realistic.

A camera observing the interactive elements (Adrian and Larry) would calculate and project appropriate shadows. Whatever computing system was generating this illusion could not complete the process in real time.

This is why the shadows lagged.

This detail on its own would only be suggestive. It's the second detail that screamed that the shadows were artificial. Larry recounts that it was odd that the shadows were so strong as there was no light source behind him.

With no direct light source there should have been no shadows created by a point light source ( a spotlight). With no lightalls functioning in position - the correct type of lighting for a movie recreation would be 'area lighting' or radiosity / occlusion.

These would generate very realistic faint, soft edged shadows. These would have been far more computationally intensive to generate though.Looking at computer graphics patents from the late seventies - radiosity and occlusion were not even being talked about.

Ray tracing was and that could have generated more realistic area lights and shadows but would have required immeasurably more computer power.

I'd like to propose that requirement for blending the craft into its environment meant that any shadows were preferable to no shadows. As such 'shadow mapping' with a hypothetical point or spotlight source was chosen.

These two choices are by far the least computationally intensive.

This can only be for one of two reasons - the technology to generate realistic shadows was not possible due to a fault or the system lacked the computing power to generate them.

The details fit well enough to make me think that a real craft with active camouflage (of any origin) or a 'mixed reality' attempt are the only options.

This hypothesis rules out false memories or hypnotic suggestion.

I find it incredibly unlikely that these two major details regarding shadows would have simply been imagined . They fit a computer rendering scenario with limited or faulty computer power far too well.

To put this another way it would be nearly impossible to take a video of a background sene and composite a crude computer generated vehicle,with no visual cues such as lighting and shadows, and have it be believable.

I've never seen any attempt to explain Larrys recollection of the lighting 'artifacts'. The latency of the shadows or the inappropriate shadow type or lack of light source to cast them all fit in with the state of the art in computer graphics in the late seventies.

Of course - no real time systems existed then to do this so the logical conclusion is that the system generating the graphics was 15 - 20 years ahead of consumer systems.

This suggests either a much more advanced system that was very faulty. Or somewhere near by was a large block of processing power that were ahead of the state of the art by a decade or so.

That means a room full of computers, possibly repurposed from another task within tens or hundreds of meters and possibly some sort of fibre optic network to link them...

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:05 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Are you saying it was similar to something mentioned much earlier in the thread?

The only question I have is why conduct anything like this out on public land, during the Christmas holiday period, where the United States Air Force did not have any jurisdiction?

edit on 21/11/15 by mirageman because: typo

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:57 PM
a reply to: mirageman

during the Christmas holiday period

Great time to # with brains that are already seasonally stressed out and dissociated?

P.S. American brains. Away from home. At Christmas.

edit on 21-11-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Mirage, all I can say with any degree of confidence, is that the second encounter, has the hallmarks of a primitive computer graphics rendering or a more advanced system failing.

There are a few key differences between the two 'ships' that intrigued me. The second one never really moved. It was never touched. It required open space, unlike the first which could manoeuvre. It also added the floating beings - which have been used to discredit the witnesses.

I think it's exceptionally unlikely that what the witness saw was hypnoses. Too many odd aspects.

Considering the time and jurisdiction the only reasonable scenarios are:

1) 'The MacGuffin'. The event was a projection to distract from the real craft encountered earlier. (and ready to roll out for some time as repeat encounters were likely)

2) 'The Prop'. The event was a 'prop' used to distract or test by a state other than the US. I can only imagine the UK as the probable source due to the computer graphics requirement,the location and the last minute logistics of setting it up. I'd favour this scenario but we are left wondering, what was the first encounter for or by, and why not use that more capable prop again? And why?

3) 'Tech Support'. Both landed craft were of extraterrestrial nature. The second one had a severe fault which extended to its camouflage.

There are two other unusual aspects to Larry's story that reinforce this theory and the scenarios:

1) The image appeared snowy. This could be the result of a shadow mapping or radiosity algorithm running with low recursion. Or, more likely, its the result of protecting onto an artificial fog.
2) Retina damage. From the use of lasers to project onto the fog. (assuming that the orb explosion wasn't the cause, but just misdirection)

Mirage, I don't believe that this theory negates Rendlesham as something unusual.

If correct, It leaves us with surprisingly few and very interesting options.

That the second event was created to discredit the first. As a distraction from the first. It required a LOT of time and preparation. The second event could not move, or roam. It was required to be static, in the open and within cable distance of a large array of rendering nodes.

Perhaps that the second event was created by a nation with similar capabilities, technically to the US, and was designed to distract from another very earthly operation. I do not believe that this could have been done by a Warsaw Pact nation. The logistics of

Or simply 'they' had a fault - with the active camouflage, and were seeking help. I do wonder what kind of fault would create latency in the display system. Or choose the wrong shadow type. Or how a computer system of a space travelling system could be so primitive.

One other thing, watch Richard Halls Lincolnshire Triangle video. A witness talks of triangular craft that change between orb and triangle with no transition. The witness is either riffing off of this incident, or a similar technology (earth based or otherwise) is being used.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:28 PM
a reply to: mirageman

The more I think about it the more I begin to think that the two craft are not related:

- Iridescent Surface on the second - Black material on the first
- Movement only in the first, not the second.
- Snowy appearance - only the second
- Retina damage - the second. UAP radiation the first.
- More easily viewed with peripheral vision - second only
- Large, navigation lights or plasmas. Only the first.
- Transition from plasma ball to craft. Unsure on first. Second for sure.
- Floating alien things. Only the second. First appears not to contain life.

The only common aspect to both is that they happened a few days apart, in the same approximate location. And both were seen by more than one person.

Take away the location and date and there is nothing to suggest that these craft were designed, manufactured and controlled by the same actor or even based on similar technology.

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Can we be sure that there was a landed craft at all on the first night?

Cabansag and Burroughs only saw lights in the distance.

Penniston's original witness statement states he never got closer than 50 metres.

He has of course claimed since 1993 in various expansions of the story that he touched a craft, photographed it, (then also decided to draw the symbols on the side of it in a dark forest) and 5 years ago announce his machine > human binary codes.

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:11 PM
a reply to: mirageman

He does refer to a mechanical nature in that statement, but if you literally mean there was something mechanical that was never stationary then, potentially that is very revealing!

Binary is one thing, ASCII encoding, that is purely a 20th century contrivance.

The first craft / event is so different, are you suggesting that it was exaggerated to seem more like the second event?

The visual artifacts of the second event are so peculiar and specific they convince me it is has some basis in reality and roughly what was described was seen.

Either one event was created or embellished to distract from the other. Or one was taking advantage of the other.

If the entire incident was a fabrication or conflation the I'd expect more internal consistency.

From a special effects point of view, it seems like each craft had specific roles (movment, close inspection) and before CGI it would be normal to have specific aspects achieved by different versions of a model. So far, so good. They would give the viewer the impression of a coherent whole and cover up each other's limitations.

Sadly I don't think this can be the case here. I can't see anyone letting a model shop create two such different models, with no coherence between the designs. They are so incogrous that I can't see both being props in the same movie.

That brings me back to the MacGuffin theory... And one craft was something truly 'other'. The other, plus hypnotic suggestions (binary) are to divert.

I'm wondering if there were any boring details that were dropped out of the narrative over the years...

The prison evacuation plan seems like one thing. I'm wondering if there is anything that connects with Sizewell.

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:43 PM
This is ATS so many of us have experienced the shadow government feedback problem.
The shadows look like they have been reflected about three times through a mirrored fun house before we see them on the craft we are actually looking at.
The original observers thought the light might have come from an old lighthouse on the coast at one point.
The actual frequency (for the Rendlesham sighting) would logically have been more modern, after 1940 but before 1954.
Some of us are convinced it was the Black Knight shadow.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I've just watched John's hypnosis session and the craft described doesn't bear much resemblance to either Larry's craft or Penniston's.

The other interesting fact from the tape, was that Borroughs showed repeated surprise that the craft could move through the trees without breaking them. So, that's two craft with motion, one without.

I'm going to propose an alternative theory. That Warrens craft and Burroughs are the same.Assuming that both descriptions contain some level of useful detail, the composite craft is very unusual.

It resembles a distorted Apollo module,normally surrounded by plasma, apparently with perlecesnt tiles. The only other place I've see those iridescent tiles is the Star Trek: The Motion Pictures version of the Enterprise, released in 1979...

I'm more convinced than ever that the 3 craft do not have the same provenance. The 'why' alludes me.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: ctj83

He does refer to a mechanical nature in that statement, but if you literally mean there was something mechanical that was never stationary then, potentially that is very revealing!

It could be Penniston saw a craft he may not have. It might have landed it might not have. Or it could have been just strange lights and nothing mechanical at all.

The other witness testimony (Burroughs and Cabansag's) does not support Penniston's later embellishments about making notes, seeing symbols on the side and receiving a binary download.

There are so many variables that it is difficult to know what was going on.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:24 PM
a reply to: ctj83

I've just watched John's hypnosis session and the craft described doesn't bear much resemblance to either Larry's craft or Penniston's.

Hypnosis is considered unreliable in a lot of quarters so we cannot be sure anything factual can be gleaned. Burroughs was also present on the third night. He only reported seeing lights again.

Colonel Halt and his small team also saw an object (but he disputes Larry Warren's testimony). According to the Halt Tape

Lt. Colonel Halt: It’s brighter than it has been…It’s coming this way. It’s definitely coming this way.

Sgt. Ball: Pieces are shooting off!

Lt. Colonel Halt: Pieces of it are shooting off.

Sgt. Ball: at about 11 oclock (12 oclock being directly up, 3 oclock being to the right etc.)

Lt. Colonel Halt: There’s no doubt about it – this is weird!...............

Lt. Colonel Halt: Strange. One again left. Let’s approach the edge of the woods at that point. Can we do without lights? Let’s do it carefully, come on… OK we’re looking at the thing, we’re probably about 2-3 hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you, it’s still moving from side to side and when we put the star scope on it, it’s sort of a hollow centre right, a dark centre............

Lt. Colonel Halt: We’ve passed the farmer’s house and are crossing the next field and we now have multiple sightings of up to five lights with a similar shape and all, but they seem steady rather than pulsating a glow with a red flash......

Source : Halt Tape Transcript

So what was going on? Was there a real physical craft? Was it something else?

Another observation is that despite John Burroughs stating he only saw lights in his witness statement (and at other times down the years) he did actually state in a TV interview :

All of a sudden in the clearing there was an object. It had a bank of blue lights on it and it was sitting there like strobing........

So best of luck trying to work it all out.
edit on 24/11/15 by mirageman because: add vid

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: mirageman

It was a bit of a throwaway comment, but when I mentioned the 1979 model of the USS Enterprise, I was imagining the saucer section removed, and the secondary hull stood on its end with the pearlescent / iridescent tiling.

The render I've seen of johns craft just shows lights. Not the pearlescent tiling John mentions. I've never seen or heard of that kind of tiling associated with a space vehIcle, either fact or fiction before apart from that film,

So, I think that it was probably a confabulation as the film had only just come out a year before (December 1979).

I'd still maintain that Larrys craft, matches state of the art computer rendering techniques of the time. I can't put that down to confabulation or hypnosis.

Jims craft, is so different, and with no unusual descriptions I can match up, I'm tempted to eliminate that. I'm also wondering if there is a science fiction precedence for the design?

Do you know who drew this ufo design? It's described as Halts...

edit on 24-11-2015 by ctj83 because: Image update
edit on 24-11-2015 by ctj83 because: image update

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 04:11 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Your link for the pic doesn't work. ATS is hopeless at rendering long links. But here it is below.

Checking google image search it seems to be a drawing by Colonel Halt. Well according to the Daily Mail (not the most reliable of sources as you probably know if you are British).

Daily Mail Story

I have my doubts as I have never seen or heard mention of a drawing by the Colonel.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks Mirageman.

I've little doubt that the drawing is unreliable but it does look old due to the illustration style. Far older than the Daily Mail story at least.

Ignoring that, I found that Burrough's 'craf't' goes back to his official statement.

That leaves us with four craft (without hypnosis involved, I hope)

- Pennistons Triangle with a fin
- Bustinza - Saucer with raised center
- Warren - Pyramid with iridescent surface
- Burroughs - Pyramid of lights, ( pearlescent surface mention in hypnosis)

Conceivably Warren, Burroughs and Penniston could be describing the same device, at different states of illumination.

Why on earth do UFOs require such bright lights in primary colours?

new topics

top topics

<< 31  32  33   >>

log in