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: 60
87
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Although I remain relatively open minded as to what the cause of the Rendlesham incident may be I also think it's necessary to question everything as well.

What does this photograph really shows us?

If you can find someone who has never heard about the incident then a good test would be to ask them what they think they are looking at. Because it's impossible to say. It could even be a lighthouse at a stretch LOL!




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

It is suspicious.
I'm still thinking its just something to keep the story going.
Maybe because someone still wants answers or maybe to sell another book?
Who knows?

If someone in the know could rephotograph that scene, then show us where there are points of reference to compare and give us a clue as to what we're looking at....
Highly unlikely.

It could, indeed, end up being a lighthouse.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

I just ran this picture through Google's image search giving me a bunch of comparable images and I was a bit surprised by the result. Mostly pictures from space and nebula's in the same color variation.

The BW picture through Google only gives Rendlesham UFO blog hits, so that result is allready contaminated.

Adds absolutely nothing to this discussion, but I thought it was still cool to share.

My second guess would be a Christmas tree

edit on 11-5-2016 by zeroPointOneQ because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-5-2016 by zeroPointOneQ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Its actually quite interesting because I've been thinking about the way the Plasma Candyfloss TM thing looks.
Nebula did cross my mind along with some other things.
Creased up mylar or foil, strangely lit?
Some kind of electrical effect?

Its one of the main reasons that I find the photo so intriguing.
Can't remember who said it first in this thread but you have to agree, it would be hard to fake.

I once thought that the "yellowish mist" first seen in the forest and around the object could have been a gas released as a self defense mechanism.
This may have affected those nearby possibly leading to hallucinatory effects which would explain their difficulty in describing the object.
None of them seem to be describing exactly the same thing.
Now that I've seen the photo, if genuine, I'm having trouble myself!

If we look at it from ctj83s sci-fi/UFOlogy angle, I'd say it reminded me of a Star Trek episode where Spock had to psychically connect to some strange "molten rock" or lava type entity on a new planet.
Only this is more red and orange and black. Just a blob really.

We might not be getting too far but any discussion here has some value. Even if we're just discounting things.
edit on 12-5-2016 by Tulpa because: I'm rubbish



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tulpa

Well, in my opinion anything can be faked with the right time investment and budget (depending on the time period).

A camera with a long shutter time can produce some pretty trippy effects. Perfectly doable in the 80s.

The yellow gas makes me thinking about plasma's again ('electrified' gas). Kev's plasma's and Mirageman's mention of Andrew Pike's research sure put me in that direction.

Self defense, leak or intended experiment?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'm suspicious that the photo never saw the light of day before it did. To me, that points to a hoax



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ


A camera with a long shutter time can produce some pretty trippy effects. Perfectly doable in the 80s.


...Or even as late as 1998/9. The origins of this photo are entirely based on Larry Warren's story. We only first hear about it (someone correct me if it's mentioned earlier) in Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" which came out in late 1999.

ETA:
=========

I think this is possibly a place to recap on where we are with this case since I started the thread back in 2013.

John Burroughs and Jim Penniston authored a book "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" with Nick Pope. John and Jim (as of May 2016) no longer seem to wish to speak to each other.

Peter Robbins (with assistance from Larry Warren) then released a series of pdf booklets "Deliberate Deception" attacking the perceived inaccuracies in the above book and has seemingly become distant from his one time friend Nick Pope.

John Burroughs had to undergo corrective heart surgery in late 2013. After a long battle with the United States Veterans Association (VA) he finally won his case and his medical bills were settled by the VA in early 2015 based on what 'may' have gone on at Bentwaters. Strangely his medical records have still not been released. John currently co-hosts a radio show with Linda Moulton-Howe.

Colonel Charles Halt returned to England for a speaking engagement in Woodbridge in the summer of 2016. He appeared to be revealing new evidence from Air Force radar operators Ike Barker and Jim Carey. They reported an object travelling at an extremely high rate of speed passed over the control tower and then it just stopped!

It was news last year : www.mirror.co.uk...

But the story has been out there for nearly a decade : www.ufohastings.com...

Peter Robbins came back with a book "Halt in Woodbridge" to once again defend his work in "Left at East Gate" and his co-author Larry Warren after Halt's comments at Woodbridge. Some of it was entirely justified.

Adrian Bustinza, the NCO on duty on the 3rd night, finally gave a live radio interview last summer. Some of what he said seemed very confused as to what happened.

It seems there may well be a host of new books on the incident from Halt, Penniston, Burroughs with a little help from their fiends
.

We have uncovered photos that Larry Warren and Gary Heseltine have been using as part of speaking engagements and also an interesting letter Larry wrote to his mum back in 1980.

There's probably a lot more so feel free to discuss anything else.....


edit on 12/5/16 by mirageman because: ETA



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Excellent round-up!
Thanks for that. I've read this whole thread twice now.
Quite a lot to remember and some great links etc.
I bet I'll still end up repeating something.

I'd really like more clarification about the photo but it is weird whatever it is.
Non ionising radiation has come up in connection with UFOs and power lines in a book I picked up recently so I've got sidetracked again.
Maybe there's something interesting in there.
Thanks again for the re-cap.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Thx for the recap. Easy to get lost in all this information.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

There's probably a lot more so feel free to discuss anything else.....



Nevels reporting a hole in one of the WSA bunkers is also worth mentioning in this recap.

Regarding the photographs: I think Larry himself does not know what to think of the photographs either. He simply got them from someone after LEAG was published.

Larry has been used as a ‘clearing house’ from the very start, by witnesses who wanted to stay anonymous. Bustinza was one of them. To protect these witnesses he has often weaved their information into his own story.

I think Larry was there, but his story is contaminated. Larry loves to tell a good story, which makes him especially vulnerable to disinformation, and embellished stories from the rumour mill. So he has both hurt and helped this case.

What if Bustinza was ordered to feed Larry disinformation, after they threatened Bustinza with ‘bullets are cheap’? He would have no choice but to follow orders. There are tell-tale pieces in both LEAG and YCTTP that seem to paint this picture, especially with regard to wild stories about underground alien bases.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Has anyone tried PM'ing Kit Green/Springer for a clarification on his (Green's) comments??

Someone who has ostensibly good credentials, has made very specific comments and is possibly contactable via ATS might provide a nice change of pace to wading through 30 years of tall tales....

Other (ostensibly well credentialed) people have also commented with specific detail on Rendelsham so why not start with the present day, contactable persons of interest and work backwards??

I think the reason why these "persons of spooky employment" are commenting along the lines of "secret technology" speaks volumes and as far as I know, wouldn't normally be permissible in a conventional SAP/off the books project unless sanctioned from up above.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

My impression was that Kit Green does not intend to add to his post in the 'sister' thread to this one :

"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

He did not return to clarify some of the questions his statement raised. Although I do believe he provided some assistance to John Burroughs in his battle with the VA.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Guest101




Nevels reporting a hole in one of the WSA bunkers is also worth mentioning in this recap.


Yes, I don't know why I forgot that? Maybe mind control or something like that
.



What if Bustinza was ordered to feed Larry disinformation, after they threatened Bustinza with ‘bullets are cheap’? He would have no choice but to follow orders.............


Yes and that provides huge doubts about Larry's story if true. Because then Bustinza confirming Larry was there may ultimately mean nothing. However I think Larry is intertwined with it all in some way myself.


Thanks again for your input.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Actually to clarify my earlier reply, Kit Green did not return to the thread quoted above. However Springer did get a follow up of sorts here: www.abovetopsecret.com....




That 'narrow RF bandwidth' I intended to specify is actually a 'BroadBand' NIEMR. It is a smaller portion of the RF range. It is at the "upper" end from high microwave and above including 10 GHz [millimeter] and Terahertz [sub-millimenter] wavelengths. This 'Broadband' NIEMR… micro-, -mm, and THz waves … cause molecular rotation, vibration, and especially intermolecular motion in human tissues. All these are dose-dependent, and can cause skin and central neuron heating, burns, sub–clinical to worse peripheral neurogenic, and connective tissue (including cardiac valve) injuries and growth of clones of cells into neoplasms. So : 'Broadband' NIEMR is a 'narrow bandwitdth' subset of the the much more broad Radiofrequency band … the [to me] most worrisome frequencies are above 300 GHz through 3,000 GHz. All these RF and NIEMR (and higher frequencies / shorter wavelengths) are below visible and of course even higher frequencies / shorter wavelength X-Rays. ......


One post and one reply by proxy. That's all we have and all we're likely to get.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

How did I miss that gem....?
Thanks for the link and further affirmation that this thread is one of the best examples of crowd sourced investigation on ATS currently.

There's more than enough info in the above paragraph to determine veracity and (although no expert) I share Bybybots misgivings from the sister thread.

Some good stuff to be reading about anyway and hopefully it might attract the attention of others who are up to speed on the suggested mechanism of action.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Did i miss something?

What misgivings?

Suggested mechanism of action?

Kev



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you read the description provided (via proxy) the clarification of RF bands is a bit messy.

This in itself is not proof of disinformation as it is entirely normal for experts in one field to not fully understand the intricacies of another field outside of their expertise (in this case RF).

To give him the benefit of the doubt; It could be that he heard a rumor and put 2 and 2 together using his medical knowledge but isn't able to describe the RF "how" in a way that is acceptable.

I see MoA is a term already appropriated by pharmacology so I should have said "the mysterious RF component that can propagate free space and traverse external cellular structures without causing damage (the skin) and seemingly only affects internal organs" (in this case the heart).


edit on 14-5-2016 by Jukiodone because: "weird" rays affecting my typing



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Well that IS interesting.

"My" "plasma theory" would have zero issue with non-ionizing radiation bypassing external tissue and affecting the heart directly.

In fact that's exactly how it work with all manner of organs with associated nerve plexus.

However I can't prove the theory on that level yet...or even describe it properly yet in terms of science.

But we are talking something akin to zero point field effects at the nanoscale level across synapses of both neurons, neuropeptides, hormones, etc.

So where you may see disinformation or confusion, I see possible confirmation.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Kev
edit on 14-5-2016 by KellyPrettyBear because: Typo



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Jukiodone

Well that IS interesting.

"My" "plasma theory" would have zero issue with non-ionizing radiation bypassing external tissue and affecting the heart directly.

However I can't prove the theory on that level yet...or even describe it properly yet in terms of science.



I thought you might reply with the above 3 statements



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ctj83




Here is an offbeat theory:
- The second night is the night the real stuff happened
- halt recorded two tapes - one second one third night
- his occasional confusions such as John not being present are due to the two tapes
- the tape we have is edited or reconstructed to hide details
- it's essentially a sacrifice to protect the second night which we know far less about.



This has been something that has puzzled me for a long time.

What really did go on that 2nd night (26th/27th December 1980)

However I can't get very far with the theory other than



What if Halt's memo is using the 'date' when something happened that needs to be concealed? The 27th December. Instead of a mistake this is the actual date of something important.

He even confirms later in the memo "The following night" as the 29th December. Which is unusual if he was being consistent the following night was surely the 28th December?



Then we have Penniston's notebook dating details of a craft no one else saw on the first night. JIm also dates it as 27th December.



Was Jim actually out there on a further night - the 27th?



Is it possible Penniston and then Halt were out on the 2nd night? What if Penniston was called back to duty because of Tamplin's incident and then Halt got involved as well?

To be honest I can't even convince myself this could be right. Penniston was supposed to be off duty after 26th according to all reports. The most logical answer is that both Halt and Penniston made mistakes with their dates. Although both of them making the same mistake also begs further questions.









top topics



 
87
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join