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

a reply to: mirageman

Nope. You've researched enough to know this is a highly probable future.

You just wanted to use your bull/cow emoji!

🐄

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yes I haven't been able to use it since the Close Encounter of the Herd Kind thread!

Now 'Steak and chips' has long been the staple diet of an Englishman.... So I guess it is progress that eventually it will be bundled together in the future and served in the 'George Orwell Restaurant'.

Enough of this frivolity.

I keep asking questions of Halt's decisions in Rendlesham, and refusal to do more than take a walk in the fores,t whilst lights are buzzing over head and supposedly beaming down onto his bases.


Do you go with the popular theory that UFOs (and even aliens) hang around nuclear plants and weapons sites?

a reply to: mirageman

No.

That is Bullocks.

🐮

It's pure disinformation to bolster the feeble ETH claims, as the ETH has value in covering up military test flights.

The EDH has no such value (especially the crypto variant). In fact crypto/high strangeness/plasma hypothesis makes governments look weak and helpless.

There are many behavioral clues to be examined...nuclear monitoring is not one of them.

On top of that...nuclear ordinance in proper storage should not emit any noticeable radiation to speak of.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I agree. It has become a ufological cliche along with how primitive and warlike we humans are. How we need to achieve a higher level of spirituality. Why we are too dumb to invent stuff ourselves and had to have a helping alien hand.

So too the nuclear attraction.

A few years ago Stanton Friedman was spouting his usual claims on a radio show. Fortunately listener questions were being taken by email. So I asked, given his position as nuclear physicist, how the aliens would have spotted the atomic tests and bombs. Given that the light from such blasts takes 4 years to reach the nearest star then what exactly was involved to get them to crash land at Roswell?

He got quite irritated by it and began to talk bullocks as well.

a reply to: mirageman

Actually if there is ANY link to a fascination with nuclear stuff...the only way "they" might detect it is if they were already here..or on the other side of an open EDH wormhole..

In that case they certainly weren't "summoned" by the nuke (they were already here).

I'd say it's far more likely that "something" might want us to develop deadly technology and/or trash the planet

(me thinks thou dost protest too much applies here)

As all the "good aliens" complain endlessly but never lift one finger.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

Way to destroy the Nuclear proliferation theory sir!

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Marylongstockings

I gave up on Gary Osborn after reading a page of his website (years ago) . He had absolutely no idea of punctuation, grammar or sentence construction. This made his website too difficult to follow. Which makes me wonder how the hell the guy is supposed to be writing a book.
So can you explain what 23.5 means?


I had to smile at the first part about my writing skills, especially seeing as I have had three books published and I am married to an English Professor who rates my writing skills highly (one of the reasons why she was attracted to me in the first place). She says that yes, my writing is detailed and complex, but she likes it that way as it’s how writing should be and that's a good thing as I am not writing for kindergartners . . .
In fact, the way in which I write actually expresses the way I receive my insights – which are the result of an awakening/enlightenment experience I had in 93, which is why my sentences are often overloaded with information; it’s as if I am trying to express the connections all at once – just like my experience. It's just the way I write sometimes, as the insights often come to me while I'm writing. Perhaps you’re too “obtuse” to see that.
In any case, I really take no offense – but I will keep in mind that this is the assessment of someone who doesn't even know the significance of "23.5," which I guess I will have to explain . . .

23.5 is a degree value and happens to be the all-round, obliquity angle of the Earth's axis in degrees, as cited in most geophysical text books - even though the true angle is 23.44*.

Now, I noticed that the woman calling herself "Marylongstockings" couldn't answer your question as to what "23.5" is or means. She was in a relationship with Jim Penniston and lived with him for awhile. Jim told me that he realised she was snooping around his place, gathering information to debunk the RFI and the binary code. He says he also suspected that she was being funded by someone or some group to do this and that's why he kicked her out.

Now, the thing is she was present during my first email exchanges with Jim Penniston while I was passing Jim my initial findings on the seven coordinates from the code (this was between February and April 2011 . . . over 5 years ago).
I have to say that I am a little concerned about this, as it is clear that SHE STILL DOES NOT KNOW what "23.5" is, and means, even though I have explained it to her numerous times. However, this is an example of how she conducts her research; it is all over the place and she goes around in circles because she clearly cannot see the connections between things.

So, that's what we are dealing with here . . . people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

AND, you’re wrong to say that I research “New Age.” In fact, I try to keep away from the so-called “new age” interpretations of the subjects and information I research, which originally began with me trying to understand the experience I had, and there’s nothing wrong with that. And I’m certainly not into “woo woo.” That’s for naïve people who need something to believe in. My work often involves deciphering codes, and I prefer to work with geometry and mathematics – actually ‘ontological mathematics’ – and the math doesn’t lie. At the same time, my views are always balanced, and this means I look at everything rationally and intuitively and I always remain objective. So, if you’re going to “pigeonhole” me, then I would prefer you do so under the ‘Myers-Briggs personality types,’ as that’s quite acceptable. Look up ‘INTJ.’

If I appear "condescending," that's because I intended to be, as that's how you come across in your posts "mirageman."

Gary Osborn

edit on 31-5-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2016 by Gaos0 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I agree. It has become a ufological cliche along with how primitive and warlike we humans are. How we need to achieve a higher level of spirituality. Why we are too dumb to invent stuff ourselves and had to have a helping alien hand.

So too the nuclear attraction.

A few years ago Stanton Friedman was spouting his usual claims on a radio show. Fortunately listener questions were being taken by email. So I asked, given his position as nuclear physicist, how the aliens would have spotted the atomic tests and bombs. Given that the light from such blasts takes 4 years to reach the nearest star then what exactly was involved to get them to crash land at Roswell?

He got quite irritated by it and began to talk bullocks as well.

That assumes they are extraterrestrial. The may be "sharing" the same space as we are. Different frequency, dimensions, what have you. I'd think a nuclear explosion could be known to them in this case

a reply to: Gaos0

Certainly brings some interesting characters to light doesn't it, this RFI thing.
Sounds like the murk is quite thick here.
Our little discussion seems quite mild compared to some peoples "quest for knowledge".

This is Network 23 broadcasting live to the world...

a reply to: Tulpa

Believe me, the RFI is toxic, especially when it comes to the witnesses and the people involved, and you have to remain objective at all times and try not to be emotionally attached. I also apply that to my own research and findings. Ironically, most people, even the RFI researchers, appear to be too focused on the most trivial things associated with the RFI - especially the 'people politics' and the dramas and have largely ignored the Binary Code - believing there's nothing to it. That's been a blessing really, as too many people getting involved would have been a distraction to me while I was working on it.

Gary.

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary,

My wife and I are INTJ/INFJ.

I consider bragging about that gauche at best.

I would also like to point out that "ontological mathematics" is another gauche phrase.

I have no problem that you research fringe topics..I do the same..many of us here on ATS do.

But there is no prettying that up.

It is neither a good or a had thing.

No need to be defensive.

But I do understand that Mirageman probably had no idea that his comment (right or wrong) would cause you to spring up unexpectedly.

IMHO this once excellent thread seems to be attracting soap-opera level interactions, due to impending new (dubious) book editions coming out.

Maybe we can check the cloak and dagger and egos and discuss this RFI miasma with decorum?

Btw...welcome to the thread.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yeah, Gary...what the K-to-tha-P-to tha-B said. Including: Welcome. And--sheesh--just embrace your woo. Tryn' to deny it will be ultimately fruitless, I'm guessing, from what I've read from you so far, and I'm a fair guesser.

Now, sir, our minds are open...present us with coherent theorem and let us thus taste and ponder the fruits of both your research & enlightenment of the "almost" 23.5.

Kev: Howdy, brudda! Hugs. Great ^^^^post^^^^

a reply to: The GUT

You'll always be my role model brudah!

Nice having you back.

Kev

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary, I do hope you realize that the binary codes are not what they seem to be.

This is revealed by some ‘ontological mathematics 101’ :

The first coordinates in the message match the Woodbridge coordinates from a Tele Atlas map from 2009/2010 up to the last decimal.

For different digital map makers, the coordinates of a town centre will differ in the last three decimals because a map maker has to select a square inch somewhere in the middle of a town that represents the town centre, and every map maker will select a different square inch.

A total of six digits (there are two coordinates, so 2x3 digits at the end of each coordinate) exactly match with Tele Atlas – a one in a million chance. So there can be no doubt that Tele Atlas was the source for the first coordinates.

Note that in 2009/2010, Tele Atlas provided the map data for Google Earth. Jim probably used a military grade map, with one extra decimal. When Jim released the remaining pages with coordinates a while after this analysis was posted on a forum in 2010, all remaining coordinates had one decimal less.

Jim also made a common mistake for Americans, for whom all coordinates are to the west of the meridian – Woodbridge is just to the east.

This mistake saved him: Jim at first stated he thought that these were the Woodbridge coordinates and the ‘ship’ was directed there. When he realized he was in trouble, the Hy Brazil angle saved him and he quickly changed his mind.

The binary message also contains a common spelling error (COODINATE instead of COORDINATE – the ‘R’ is missing).

In binary this means exactly 8 bits in a row that correspond to the ‘R’ are missing in an otherwise perfect sequence of 80 bits:
COODINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101
COORDINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01010010 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101

So even if a binary message was conveyed by some Superpower, what are the odds that exactly these 8 bits did not come through – the same bits that represent a common spelling error?

So I'm afraid the binary codes are just a red herring ...

a reply to: Gaos0

Toxic is indeed an apt expression at this point.
I've pointed out that concentrating on the minutiae of this case can be a dead end road but sometimes a different kind of digging may actually help reveal some pertinent snippet.

The build up to the book release will no doubt find its way on to these pages and, who knows, maybe even generate extra sales if things work out.
A little controversy will surely do no harm at this point.
Do we have a date yet?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Hi Kev,

My wife Heather is also an INFJ, so I'm pleased to meet you. Yes, the few things I mentioned may appear 'gauche,' but it was just for my personal amusement to see if people make the connections. "Cloak and dagger egos" . . . well, I wasn't around to defend myself when mirageman first mentioned me at the beginning of this long thread, so it was about time I said something about that. What he wrote was disparaging and dismissive and I'm sure it must have discouraged most people from learning anything I had to say about my work on the coordinates from the code, which from the outset is not cool. There is much about the coordinates that people don't know about yet.
As for "fringe" topics, it's all part of the human experience. My view is, that much of what we experience we help to create ourselves with what we tend to focus on, so its best not to get too attached to these things and to always suspend belief and not rush into making assumptions and conclusions. I am careful and cautious, and that's why it has taken me five years to work on the coordinates, to make sure that I have something to offer people. To my credit, I didn't rush a book out on what I had already learned initially in the first few months of having received the remaining (then, publicly unknown) six coordinates from Jim Penniston. That's not what I am about. Also, it would have been premature if any of my findings had been published in 'Encounter at Rendlesham' (as was actually planned at first), as more revealed itself during those five years.
Thanks for your comments.

a reply to: vlawde

My goodness me Gary am totally astounded by what I have just read???
This is going to be bring about some very serious things am afraid.
I had no idea about this, but this is beyond deplorable.

The level everyone has gone to cover up, protect and hide is beyond
incredible.

I am shaking my head in disbelief how underhanded you have become Gary.

originally posted by: mirageman

Enough of this frivolity.

I keep asking questions of Halt's decisions in Rendlesham, and refusal to do more than take a walk in the fores,t whilst lights are buzzing over head and supposedly beaming down onto his bases.

...and enough of the binary codes, but back to the real stuff:

On the third night, the only things seen were just lights. After Larry's letter and Bustinza's last interview I'm pretty sure of that.
Moving lights sending down light beams are hardly a thread, but more a kind of curiosity.
This is exactly how they were treated, and were treated again a few weeks later.

LAEG, p351, CH = Halt, LW = Larry, PR = Peter Robbins:

CH: You’re aware that the story you’ve told or the stories you’ve told over the years don’t fit in with what I recollect and other witnesses recollect.

LW: And yet I have statements from other guys that were right next to me at certain elements of this thing

[…]

CH: Where did the story come from that, number one, Gordon Williams was there? Gordon Williams was at another social function that night, I know he was.

LW: Well, I know, but I…

CH: Where did the little green men come from?

LW: They weren’t green (laughs)

CH: Or whatever.

LW: They weren’t green and there was something there that was alive. There was this…

CH: There are two nights that are intertwined now, you’re aware of that?

LW: No

CH: You have events from the first night and the third night intertwined together, which is very puzzling

PR: What are the events that are intertwined?

CH: The actual confrontation with a craft or whatever you want to call it…

PR: You don’t feel there were several…

CH: No, no.

PR: Oh, you don’t.

CH: None of the witnesses that I’ve talked to from the third night say there was anything physical they could catch other than lights.

When the lights were seen again mid-January, they again were treated as just a curiosity, not as a thread.

CH: Gordon Williams said: “Call me the next time, I want to be there, too.” Several weeks later, one of the law-enforcement types though he saw something.

LW: That was a friend of mine, Steve LaPlume.

CH: No, it was staff sergeant Wendel Palmer – he called law enforcement and they called me. I had a little orange Triumph at the time, and I went right out the back gate at Bentwaters. Williams was right behind me but he had to go around because he had the staff car. By the time I got there, there was nothing.

This last bit is corroborated by Steve LaPlume (who was with Palmer):

Palmer said we had to call it in. he said that we were told if we saw anything odd to report it in.
Very soon after Colonel Halt showed up. I reported the post safe and secure and proceeded to tell him what happened.
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.
Then everyone except palmer and myself 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 was 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!”

a reply to: Marylongstockings

That's what Jim told me, both verbally and in private messages, and I am just repeating what he said. I am merely doing what you do all the time, but without the irregularities, the misperceptions, the spin, the twists, and the pisstakes, which are all included in your 'word salad' posts, which always lack clarity - just straight from Jim himself. And he really doesn't mind me repeating what he said, as no doubt he will be discussing what really happened when the questions come up. And sorry, but unlike you, I don't post private messages by people in public that were written in confidence . . . and YOU mentioned ME being underhanded . . .

a reply to: Guest101

"...and enough of the binary codes . . ."

Good, OK, and now I can return to my work. I will be posting a rebuttal about your earlier post though 101 on the code being a "red herring."