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: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 

Thank you for that level-headed post, Ectoplasm8

May I just add that there are two common (and contradictory) criticisms levelled against the lighthouse explanation: (a) that the security guards at East Gate would have seen it all the time; (b) that you can’t see it from the forest at all. Both are wrong.

The lighthouse beam became visible only from well into the forest, which is of course why the guards were surprised when they went out there in search of the supposed downed aircraft and saw it for the first time.

The poor old lighthouse keeper interviewed by The UFO Hunters had no reason to have gone there himself, and so wasn’t aware that the beam shone right into the forest at that point. I wonder why The UFO Hunters didn’t go there to see for themselves — or just look at my 30-year-old BBC report?

For those who don't know, the lighthouse was switched off last summer and is now abandoned so we will never again be able to see it flashing among the trees.
www.ianridpath.com...

PS: Local film maker Adrian Frearson made a little video about the visibility of the lighthouse, here
www.youtube.com...

edit on 21-1-2014 by ianrid because: adding link to YouTube video




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


You're not here to debate , you are simply here to pour scorn on anyone who disagrees with your myopic world view. In your world witnesses are only credible what their qualifications might be, so long as they agree with your point of view. Your whole passive aggressive stance is so patently see through it is a joke. I am willing to bet, you have never properly interviewed a single UFO witness and that, the summary of your activity in the field is restricted to sniping from the sidelines on some internet forum. i don't appear on TV unlike Ian Ridpath, under the soubriquet "UFO expert", because I don't believe I am expert and,
in my life time, I have never met a single person I could genuinely call an expert on UFOs. There is one honourable exception to that and that would Jacques Vallee and even he would probably say himself, the word expert is probably too strong a word to use.

If someone sees a red ball of light floating through the tress of a forest what do you expect them to report? A small heard of wildebeest majestically sweeping across the veldt? if a friend of mine comes back from Rendlesham and tells me that, their car was blocked in by a large 4x4 in an otherwise empty car park? What I am meant to say? oh you must be wrong?

The majority of cases reported to me down the years, I can find a prosaic explanation for and the people go away happy or unhappy depending on their world view. The idea that three nights of activity at Rendlesham was caused by meteors, a lighthouse and space debris is an insult to every person involved. Then I forget people like you and Ridpath who weren't there, and have probably never spoken to single actual witness, would know far more about it than they would wouldn't you? Do you have any idea what an arrogant attitude that comes across as and you;re the one bleating about being treated with a certain amount of disdain?

Only in the world of Ufology would some low rent amateur have the gall to tell a highly skilled professional. "You're wrong, you haven't a clue what you really saw, yes I wasn't there , i haven't a clue what you actually experienced however, i know what it really was".

I'm sure yours and Ridpath's world is an interesting one, as it involves meteors and space debris that hover above forests and flying lighthouses. Sadly, i have to stick to the reality I and the vast majority of people who read this forum live in, the one where those particular laws of nature do not apply. So yes, i do become somewhat weary and a tad cranky when the so called rational explanation makes alien space ships mining for cotton candy look sensible.

Unlike you and Ridpath I approach the subject with an open mind and even if the facts as they appear go against every last fibre of my instincts then I have to deal with them even handedly. I try to leave my prejudices at the door of Ufology, as to bring them with me is, not only a disservice to the field it is also unbelievably personally insulting to those who have often suffered a quite considerable trauma.

Ian Ridpath's contribution to field of ufology is virtually zero. He's the only astronomer in the world who thinks Venus can be seen 30 degrees above the horizon at 2 am on an October morning from England. (see Ridpath's analysis of the Boston Stump incident even tough, a local news crew consulted an astronomer and a meteorologist in the days following the incident and were told exactly the opposite by those professionals) So you will excuse me if i find his presence in the field somewhat of a sick joke. His opinions are wholly blighted by his own particular bias and in the only two cases I have ever seen him venture an opinion on, he chooses ignore the welter of evidence that suggests he is wrong.

So yes, I'd respectfully suggest the pair of you stick to your mutually back slapping sceptic forums where the laws of science acquiesce to your own egos and stop littering up forums like this with your other worldly science.
edit on 21-1-2014 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


I must say I very unimpressed. Is it possible to discuss the points made? I have been interested in this case for quite some time and I am trying to understand the facts of the events. It does seem like the lighthouse could be an explanation for some of this account and there seems to be some other very valid points made that are only met with underhanded replies.

Personally, I don't consider "UFO Hunters" a valid source of factual information any more than I would consider "Real Housewives" a factual source. Yes, I am implying the show is probably scripted and heavily edited for dramatic effect. So, do you have any counter arguments or should I also expect to be dished out a fantastic onslaught of ridiculous verbal abuse?


edit on 21-1-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

ianrid
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 

Thank you for that level-headed post, Ectoplasm8

May I just add that there are two common (and contradictory) criticisms levelled against the lighthouse explanation: (a) that the security guards at East Gate would have seen it all the time; (b) that you can’t see it from the forest at all. Both are wrong.

The lighthouse beam became visible only from well into the forest, which is of course why the guards were surprised when they went out there in search of the supposed downed aircraft and saw it for the first time.

The poor old lighthouse keeper interviewed by The UFO Hunters had no reason to have gone there himself, and so wasn’t aware that the beam shone right into the forest at that point. I wonder why The UFO Hunters didn’t go there to see for themselves — or just look at my 30-year-old BBC report?

For those who don't know, the lighthouse was switched off last summer and is now abandoned so we will never again be able to see it flashing among the trees.
www.ianridpath.com...

PS: Local film maker Adrian Frearson made a little video about the visibility of the lighthouse, here
www.youtube.com...

edit on 21-1-2014 by ianrid because: adding link to YouTube video


I thought I heard somewhere that a reflector was in place on the forest side of the lamp at the time of the sightings making it impossible to shine in that direction... or am I mistaken?
edit on 21-1-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


may I also suggest looking at the information available on wikipedia. Type in " Bentwaters ufo incident" and there is much to read. Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I find the theory that our players have had their heads "tinkered" with very interesting. It might even be the best explanation for why there is a problem with the release of medical records.

Lord Hill-Norton's questions--including reference to Porton Down--also seem suggestive that he maybe had some clues born of long experience with high-security matters.

Steve LaPlume has also theorized some head tinkering may have been involved.

Can anyone here elaborate on that aspect?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


If someone sees a red ball of light floating through the tress of a forest what do you expect them to report? A small heard of wildebeest majestically sweeping across the veldt?

That's a nonsensical comment about the wildebeest. I was asking do you take what is said at face value? Without coming out and admitting to it, it sounds like you do? That's fine, I don't really care. I'm just trying to get a grasp on the level of investigation and fact finding you do to come to your conclusions.
By the way, this isn't giving the reason for the red lights. Just an interesting observation. From Ian Ridpath's website, here is a photo of the area showing the different lights that can/could be seen at night:



if a friend of mine comes back from Rendlesham and tells me that, their car was blocked in by a large 4x4 in an otherwise empty car park? What I am meant to say? oh you must be wrong?

Keep your comment in context. You mentioned the unmarked 4x4's included in your "strange happenings" comment. I'll ask you again, what do you believe their purpose was? To get people off their property? Or some mysterious faction at the site? Most SUVs or JEEPs are unmarked. Wouldn't you agree? What's the significance of your 'unmarked' point? Does it add more mystery to the story?

Re: The lighthouse. You stated there was a shield in place to block the light from coming inland. I linked a video and a photo showing from the perspective of the site, it can be seen. What's your follow-up comment on the lighthouse shield?



Only in the world of Ufology would some low rent amateur have the gall to tell a highly skilled professional. "You're wrong, you haven't a clue what you really saw, yes I wasn't there , i haven't a clue what you actually experienced however, i know what it really was".

I'm sure yours and Ridpath's world is an interesting one, as it involves meteors and space debris that hover above forests and flying lighthouses. Sadly, i have to stick to the reality I and the vast majority of people who read this forum live in, the one where those particular laws of nature do not apply. So yes, i do become somewhat weary and a tad cranky when the so called rational explanation makes alien space ships mining for cotton candy look sensible.

You come out of the box with emotionally charged comments. As if you have some deep vested personal interests in these incidents. It's a pattern you repeat with other members as well. There's no search for a "proper debate" in your posts. You tend to take snide personal jabs at whomever doesn't agree with you. As you have in your response to me. I find it amusing and telling, but needs to be pointed out nevertheless if you can't see it. But, it would *behoove* you to simply stay on the facts presented and try not get so emotionally wrapped up in your responses.

Now, care to comment or debate any of my points highlighted in yellow?




edit on 21-1-2014 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Just a quick note to say thanks to all the people who are providing the "Skeptical Eyes" and the "Open Minds" on this thread and making it a great debate.

I am full of a really heavy cold at the moments so have delayed posting any more theories on what may have happened until my head is clearer.

In the meantime I would like to ask Ian Ridpath (or any other astronomers) if the unusual cosmic display over the 3 nights can be recreated in something in astronomy software so we could see how the night sky would have appeared to the USAF personnel as time passed over Christmas in 1980?

Screenshots would be excellent if anyone can post them up.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
THE ORFORD NESS LIGHTHOUSE AND RENDLESHAM — THE LOCAL FORESTER REPLIES

The question was recently raised on these pages as to whether Vince Thurkettle, the local forester, had changed his mind about the role played by the Orford Ness lighthouse in the Rendlesham Forest sighting. I emailed him to check and he affirmed: “My position has not changed!”.

He gave me permission to quote the following:
“The alleged UFO landing site on the eastern edge of Rendlesham Forest is the one I was first shown, and taken to by Col Halt and shown in the police photographs: the lighthouse was very clearly visible from this, the real site. I was present when a TV company moved the landing site about 300m further east, downhill into the field, so that they could then 'prove' the sighting could not be the lighthouse. This was scandalous as it hugely muddled an already complicated mystery. I was also present for another TV investigation once when Penniston took Col Halt and I to a new 'landing site' deep in the forest, from where the lighthouse could not be seen. When questioned Penniston said he clearly remembered the site because he recognised the trees which made up the glade he had taken us to. Nobody seemed interested when I pointed out that all of the trees around us were less that 30 years old and didn't exist at the time of the incident - so he could not, as he had firmly argued, remember them.”

The programme he refers to in which Penniston invented a new landing site from which the lighthouse cannot be seen was the SciFi channel documentary of 2003, which I have previously written about.

I also have an earlier email from Vince which he sent me in 2012 in which he says: “Communication is so odd nowadays - everybody now has a voice, even those who know nothing but want to be heard! I've seen comment that 'I'm not very convincing' etc. I'm not trying to be 'convincing - like some salesman - I'm just saying they were looking into the bright beam of a lighthouse, we foresters marked the trees etc. I now think there is no point in trying to explain rationally and honestly. Nobody wants to believe there is a simple explanation, so why give them one.”

I hope this finally answers the question and we can now move on.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

mirageman
In the meantime I would like to ask Ian Ridpath (or any other astronomers) if the unusual cosmic display over the 3 nights can be recreated in something in astronomy software so we could see how the night sky would have appeared to the USAF personnel as time passed over Christmas in 1980?

Planetarium software can easily recreate the appearance of the sky for any given time or location, although we can't reproduce the sighting of the 3am fireball that seemingly sparked off the whole chain of events.

Any particular date and time you have in mind?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

draknoir2
I thought I heard somewhere that a reflector was in place on the forest side of the lamp at the time of the sightings making it impossible to shine in that direction... or am I mistaken?

I presume you are referring to the shield that blocked the light from shining into people's homes in Orford (but not from the forest). That's dealt with in the links in the posting you quote from, i.e.
www.ianridpath.com...
and
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

The GUT
Lord Hill-Norton's questions--including reference to Porton Down--also seem suggestive that he maybe had some clues born of long experience with high-security matters.

Steve LaPlume has also theorized some head tinkering may have been involved.

Too late Gut...Ian solved the case many many years ago. A few truckloads of airforcemen, including the base commander, mistook a lighthouse for a UFO. What do airforce people know about lights in the sky hey! You see it was dark and there was a one in a billion convergence of strange atmospheric and astronomical events. They all filled out career risking reports and went through rather invasive questioning being entirely fooled by the lighthouse. Some reported lights over the weapons depot, others a landing, others a meeting with an alien...all sorts of crazy reports but you know how hypnotic those repeating lighthouse beams can be of course. A guard tower was full of guys all watching the strange lights but oddly the magic lighthouse beam can't be seen from the base. You can practically hear Halt's stupidity as he walks around the forest chasing the lighthouse in the actual tape he made that evening. What a dummy that Halt is...scary the guy commanded a base with Nukes on it!. Amazingly follow up investigations in the forest were not even close to confusing the lighthouse for a UFO, a bit odd since the lighthouse kept shining for many, many, many years after the event. Can you imagine they even sent a report to the British on the event...they must have sure been laughing out loud for years! Lord Hill-Norton is well past his prime you know and clearly hasn't read Ian's website that clearly demonstrates how amazingly stupid the US airforce really is.

The world is a safe place again Ian. It was the lighthouse on the hill with a hypnotic read beam. You must be proud to win the game of Clue. Any chance people who want to continue on about the lighthouse go post on Ian's dedicated site for that topic? The rest can return to a thread that was well seeded with interesting facts by a balanced OP that has put some real effort into hearing out all the strange info this case has raised.

So far I've haven't seen one theory on how so many airforce personnel thought a never ending flash from a lighthouse was an intelligently controlled flying object. Nor how a bunch of reports claiming multiple lights in the sky came from one lighthouse. No one has explained why the group of airforcemen never simply walked far enough towards the never ending lighthouse blink to actually determine the source of the light. Oddly enough they all stopped looking before determining that never ending blink's source. I guess the base commander isn't very dedicated to finding out what might be threatening his nuclear armed base.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   

noeltrotsky
No one has explained why the group of airforcemen never simply walked far enough towards the never ending lighthouse blink to actually determine the source of the light.

Actually, of course, they did, at least on NIght One.

In his statement from NIght One, Burroughs said: “We got up to a fense [sic] that separated the trees from the open field and you could see the lights down by a farmer’s house... Once we reached the farmer’s house we could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about 2 miles [probably an exaggeration] before we could [see] it was comming [sic] from a lighthouse.”

Cabansag said: “We could see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit up farmhouse.... we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance.”

So, yes, by their own admission, they chased the lighthouse.

Col Halt was less successful in making an identification two nights later, very likely because he thought the lighthouse lay in a different direction. Like the men on Night One, he and his team went past the farmhouse, briefly losing sight of the light, then said: “We’re at the far side of the farmer’s...the second farmer’s field and made sighting again about 110 degrees.  This looks like it’s clear off to the coast.”

So: what lies on the coast and flashes?

I’ve given a transcript of this part of Halt’s tape on this page
www.ianridpath.com...
and a point-by-point analysis of it here
www.ianridpath.com...


Oddly enough they all stopped looking before determining that never ending blink's source. I guess the base commander isn't very dedicated to finding out what might be threatening his nuclear armed base.

Yes, that is indeed what happened. As Halt said in a 1994 interview with Salley Rayl: “After an hour or so, I finally made the call to go in. We left those things out there.”

So it seems that, at the time, he did not think the base was under any threat at all. Of course, he has considerably elaborated his story since then, but fortunately we have the real-time tape so we can tell what really did happen.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Perhaps interesting for some here.

Testimony of Sergeant Clifford Stone, United States Army September 2000


Bentwaters is another very interesting case. With Bentwaters, we went there to digest some of the information. As far as the physical evidence, there were photographs. There was film footage. There was evidence of a higher than normal background radiation. Not all that high, but above normal. We found that there were some abnormalities in the area we referred to as the impact point. We also noticed that the trees had been leveled off at the top. When we got there, it was late December, I want to say December 28th was the day that we arrived there.

[See the testimony regarding this event from Larry Warren, Nick Pope, et al. SG]

We gathered up the materials. We took these materials back to Lindsey Air Force Base, all the hard evidence that we could get, all the documentation that was there. There were sightings that were picked up on radar. Both the British Government and the U.S. Government were aware of these sightings. The hard evidence that we had was taken back to Lindsey Air Force Base. There it was digested to where there was some type of information that could be put out to brief Shape Headquarters [NATO]. And I don’t know who in Shape Headquarters was briefed. But I do know that we did have to do that. The information was then put with the special courier. I believe it was coming back to an air base close to the Washington, D.C. area and that the materials transferred on to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, headquarters at the time of the U.S. Air Forces Special Field Activities Group, Air Forces Field Activities Center. They then took this material, did whatever they did with it, and came up with the finalized intelligence product.

The reason it went to Lindsey was because the U.S. Air Forces Field Activities Center had detachments in the field. The closest detachment in the field to Bentwaters would have been Lindsey Air Force Base. They were the ones that got the material. They were the ones that were charged with safeguarding it until it got back to the U.S. They were asking questions, hard questions, critical questions. They were asking technical questions of technical people that were involved. I know for a fact that some of the radar operators, both British and U.S. were questioned. I know some of the people were out there on two different nights and they were questioned.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...





edit on 22/1/14 by spacevisitor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Thanks for the post OP. Personally not interested in endless discussions about lighthouses or swamp gas. Good Luck!



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

ianrid

draknoir2
I thought I heard somewhere that a reflector was in place on the forest side of the lamp at the time of the sightings making it impossible to shine in that direction... or am I mistaken?

I presume you are referring to the shield that blocked the light from shining into people's homes in Orford (but not from the forest). That's dealt with in the links in the posting you quote from, i.e.
www.ianridpath.com...
and
www.youtube.com...



Thanks. Sorry... should have clicked first.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   

noeltrotsky
Thanks for the post OP. Personally not interested in endless discussions about lighthouses or swamp gas. Good Luck!


Did someone actually suggest swamp gas was the explanation, or are you just using it to make the lighthouse theory seem improbable?

Sounds like you're personally interested in sci-fi and not sci.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Additions to OP


“Not of this Earth”



Objects…Extraterrestrial in Origin




"I wish to make it perfectly clear that the UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since. I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and England were and have been complicit in trying to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham by use of well practised methods of disinformation.


Colonel (Ret) Charles I.Halt (2009)

Source : www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk...



The most senior officer involved in the Rendlesham incident after 3 decades finally declares that he thinks the US and UK colluded in a cover up. Serious words indeed. Of course his senior officers disagreed with Halt. But they weren’t out there with him. Unless of course Larry Warren is correct and Gordon Williams was actually communicating with something out in the forest?

Chuck Halt is now in receipt of a military pension for his distinguished military career, of which only a brief period, was spent chasing UFOs at Bentwaters. He has said a number of times that he is not officially restricted from talking about the incident and never was. The Pentagon and Whitehall both agree that nothing of ‘defense’ or ‘defence’ significance happened.

After more than two decades of dismissing Larry Warren’s story of alien involvement, Colonel Halt now seemingly agrees with that conclusion - if not with the chain of events that led to it.

Technology ..Far, Far Above What We Could Ever Engineer





On one side of the craft were symbols that measured about three inches high and two and a half feet across. These symbols were pictorial in design; the largest symbol was a triangle, which was centred in the middle of the others. They were etched into the surface of the craft. I put my hand on the craft, and it was warm to the touch. The surface was smooth, like glass, but it had the quality of metal, and I felt a constant low voltage running through my hand and moving to my mid-forearm…………….

At that moment, I knew that this craft's technology was far, far above what we could ever engineer. When it took off, I felt alone, knowing now what John and I knew. Suddenly, there was no doubt. I realized that it was 100 percent certain that we are part of a larger community beyond the confines of our planet.



SSgt James Penniston

Source: Leslie Kean - UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record (2010)

Source : www.tinyurl.com...



So ……..“It’s life Jim but not as we know it?”…or maybe as one day we will know it. Did he flirt with an ET hypothesis before or after he remembered those binary codes?

I am at a loss to define Penniston’s role in this case. Is he still hedging his bets with an ulterior personal motive, spreading disinformation purposely or a genuinely confused individual who hasn’t got a clue about what’s been going through his head since Ronald Reagan was President?

He seems to have absorbed himself in the story from his own hypnosis sessions as a true account of what happened. We have his symbols, his codes, his written notes and his account of spending 45 minutes snapping photos (that alas didn’t come out), writing up notes and sketching glyphs.

He claims he was interrogated (and drugged) by AFOSI or possibly another agency. Is he therefore a victim of a controlled mind control program?

If so that is shocking.


They Were Not Human At All




Bustinza asked under his breath. “Can you see them?' l saw their eyes and knew then that they definitely were not kids. All personnel seemed in a trance and just watched them. The glow had faded a bit so their features were easier to see.

The one light then broke into three separate glowing cylinders, each containing what appeared to be a living creature. They were small, about three to four feet tall and somewhat ghostlike in appearance. They had large heads with cat like black eyes. I could not see other facial features. They were not human at all, but I was not frightened. Each was very bright almost silvery clothing. I could not see any life-support devices attached to the entities.”

Larry Warren – Left at East Gate (1997)

www.tinyurl.com...



Larry Warren has for a long time said that he saw something (or it was implanted in his brain in some way) that changed his whole life. Did he take Adrian Bustinza’s story and run with it as John Burroughs once claimed, has he been meddled with as Colonel Halt has asserted (and even Larry Warren himself concedes is probable)? Or did Larry Warren have a real close encounter of the third kind?

John Burroughs (earlier than Penniston’s) hypnosis session also revealed a link to future beings. However Burroughs prefers to make a clear distinction between what he recalls and what his hypnosis session revealed. He agrees something unexplained happened but rarely speculates on what he experienced.


edit on 22/1/14 by mirageman because: corrections



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
We Just Didn’t Know What It Was..


Lori Rehfeldt was security police officer at Bentwaters on patrol with fellow officer Keith Duffield in February of 1980. They were close to the East Gate , when they saw what they first assumed were aircraft lights in the far distance.
RAF Woodbridge air tower strangely did not turn on the runway lights whilst the lights were getting closer and approaching from the North Sea. As it got even closer she estimated the object at some 200m in length.






“… We saw this aircraft... The rate of speed that it was moving when it went across was tremendous. It was moving in like a regular aircraft, then when it stopped, it did this movement and split into three. And when sped across the runway going west, it was just going at a phenomenal speed. The only other thing that really caught our attention was that it didn’t make any noise. There was no sound to it at all. We just didn’t know what it was…”

Source : ufology.wikia.com...



A Structured Craft of Some Sort..

Steve La Plume has added an awful lot of his own experience and the UFO sighting in early Jan 1981 in this thread.




“….Airman Palmer and I stood there and talked about the light house in the background and thought it ridiculous that they would have mistaken that for a UFO over their heads. Later that evening when we had our sighting I will say this if it is a light house I saw then it uplifted off its base and flew over my head, directly over my head and then flew off to the south and went into the stars never to be seen again………”

“Again I can not speak for what those guys saw that night but the night I saw this craft it was perfectly over my head causing me to look up and craning my neck backwards...NOT a light house! I saw a structured craft of some sort with multiple colored lights.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...



“For the life of me I can not understand how Palmer and I could see a craft over our heads so close to the Flight tower and we were the only two people on base to see this huge craft. There had to be something kinky going on. Do I believe it was a real UFO from outer space. Hell I have no clue. I doubt I will ever figure that out. What I do know is the reaction of the Officers was out of the norm. I mean who in their right mind would bring their wife and teen age kid to an investigation like this? They went in to the woods like a bunch of kids going to look for elfs - really - it was more of a "Oh boy I hope get to see one" sense more than "Ok lets see what is breaching our security"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Three of the main witnesses here are stating that what they witnessed was not of this earth. Well Penniston has changed his mind and went with time travel. We also have two other USAF personnel reporting strange objects at the bases almost a year apart.

Are they all lying?

Are they all just mistaken?

Or did something weird happen?



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I notice these are all relatively recent quotes, the earliest being seventeen years after the fact. All seem far more elaborate than the initial report.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join