It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't think that "secret" characterization applies to Rendlesham because they called the police. The police came out and said they didn't see any lights but the lighthouse. They were shown a supposed "landing site" which the police (and a forester) thought looked like it was made by animals. So it's a far fetched claim to say it's a secret operation when they called in the police. I'm not as familiar with the varghia brazil case, have you got a source saying it was "supposed to be secret operations never meant to be known by the general public"? By the way making threads with your uninformed opinions and no sources is not very helpful.
originally posted by: saskwatch
these two cases down below havent been debunked yet and boy they have tried, both had a lot of military witnesses and one had alot of other evidence but the strangest part of all is they both were supposed to be secret operations never meant to be known by the general public
Larry Warren's story is not trustworthy, nor is Jim Penniston's story, so you are quite gullible in believing their debunked stories. There were multiple witnesses and most of their stories more or less line up, but not those two. Penniston now tells a story about walking around the craft for 45 minutes examining it. But two other witnesses contradict that, John Burroughs who was with Penniston said that never happened, and their shift commander who was communicating with them over walkie talkies as they were walking toward the lights, Fred Buran. Even Penniston's witness statement made the next day or so after the incident contradicts the story he tells. Fred Buran, John Burroughs and Penniston's own witness statement say he never got close to the source of the lights. Some people say maybe they were forced to make false witness statements, but that argument falls apart here:
1. larry warren brought this case to the public, i believe 90% of what larry said but i need more witnesses to come forward to back up some of his testimony
Ask yourself this: If the witness statements were all part of some grand cover-up, why did John make the following statements on the old rendlesham forum?
“Penniston did not have time to do what he said he did unless all of us were in some kind of different dimension. 2 of the 3 felt it was there and gone only Jim said it took 45 min.”
“Yes Jim story has changed and I have been one of the people who keeps hammering that fact. What I have been told is that after hypnosis that is when he changed his story.”
“Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated. Jim went under hypnosis and that has changed his story allot.”
“We came upon whatever it was and only were close to it briefly. Jim did say he felt it was some kind of object. His statement also stated how close we got to it. His story has changed and I am not sure why. He has told me since he went under hypnosis his memory of the event has changed. Whatever we came upon departed as we got close to it “
Burroughs has also had issues with the stories of Larry Warren and Jim Penniston in the past.
Here are some of his comments from this very forum :
John Burroughs: “To all who feels Larry Warren was there please understand he was not. He took Adrian Bustinza's story and ran with it!!!! How do I know this? I was there!!! “
Robbins, however, decided to part ways after discovering Warren’s military photos and documents (some used in the book as evidence) looked tampered with, that his story doesn’t add up in comparison with other facts and Warren’s penchant for claiming he was friends with such people as Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ringo Starr and John Lennon.
Simply addressing some of the basic factual errors made in relation to Rendlesham in various existing UFO books and on various websites would require posting a few hundred pages of notes. Suffice to say that some of those involved are not interested in letting the public know the truth.
That's a horrible misrepresentation of Ian Ridpath's explanation, which has three major parts and tons of evidence. No doubt much of what Ridpath says is true, but there are still a few things it doesn't explain like Burrough's health issues.
originally posted by: jamespond
Some people did try to debunk it by saying there was a meteor shower in the area that night! IMO that explanation is almost as bad as J Allen Hynek's famous "it was swamp gas" line he used to dismiss a UFO sighting in Montana in 1966
You didn't hear the alleged audio of the crew boss who drove the truck saying it was hoaxed? After the audio was made public, he first claimed it was fake, then he withdrew that claim.
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Did someone debunk Travis Walton and the other 5 crew members' UFO sighting and abduction incident?. If they did I must have missed it.
Number 1 for me.
There are so many lies told and factual errors, it's hard to figure out the truth. Starting with, Halt's famous memo doesn't even have the right date(s) on it!
Rendelsham has grown more arms and legs than your average Gonadian the more Lt Col Charles Halt and Nick Pope waffle on about it.
As for Varghia, Folklore spawned from the misidentification of a few Mangy monkeys and human imagination.
So would you rather discuss Jack McCarthy, who never had any grievance with Travis over money? He said Travis "is lying and did not take any UFO trip."
originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The least said about a bitter/jealous old man with a grievance over money the better.
I would agree with that. One of my concerns about the varginha incident was that I could never find any photos. There are numerous photos in the Operation Prato documents, though they are all more or less fuzzy blobs or nocturnal lights where you can't really tell what they are, but I suppose that's what the "U" in UFO means: "Unidentified".
originally posted by: tekkaman
Imho, instead of the varginha case i strongly recommend the Colares incident encased in the brazilian "Operación Prato" (Brazil 1977).