BBC 24 Hour news running headline about

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

OK, See: www.ianridpath.com... - I just want to take a look at some of your comments you make below.

We have a lot of strange sayings in England.
If someone referred to an item as a "banana skin" I would immediately think that they were warning me that it was potentially dangerous or as stated cause for a "slip-up" and therefore potentially harmful. Other similar terms in common use might be "hot potato" or "poisoned chalice" You heard of them?

- Banana Skins also refers to falling ove ron your arse in public and making a fool of yourself.

In the case of Rendlesham Forrest,
I remember searching the internet and reading released government documents at the beginning of this year and nowhere did I find reference that some US Service men had come forward and admitted that they were shining torches and it was all a hoax. Smacks of govt dis-info through the BBC to me.

- Why would the BBC be interested in dis-informing its viewers and readers? The Beeb has some of the most liberal, forward thinking journalists in the world, producing intelligent, informed articles, news and debate.


- While its true also tha this security guard later retracted his 'hoax' confession. This just goes to show that you cannot trust all 'witnesses' or 'participants' in a story. Just as the original eyewitnesses to this event couldnt at first correcty recalled the exact date it happened (FACT).

I remember reading and listening to the US military radio traffic transcript from the base security personnel and it was very detailed stuff.
If memory serves me correctly, the incident happened over 2 consecutive nights and several staff from the USAF base got very close to the disc which had landed in the forrest on the second night.

- they didnt see a disc, they saw only lights and heard sounds. the lights were blue, red and yellow, l(like a police car vehicle lights).

The next morning they even measured and charted the imprints in the forrest floor from the crafts 3 feet/landing gear and also documented freshly damaged tree bark at the site.

- The imprints on the grounds and marks on the trees were similar insize and style to rutting deer.

I thik they also got increased background radiation levels at the landing site and they had all sorts of problems with radios and flashlights not working correctly around the site.

- The radiation levels were no higher than typical background activity - with some momentary peaks on the equipment that were not repeated and were similar to using and moving with the equipment.

The incident was also witnessed by member(s) of the local Police and the farmer reported that all of the animals were going crazy in the middle of the night.

- The farmer did not keep animals, nor was he a witness.

The craft was also plotted by ground radar staff and at phenomenal speeds after taking off.

- Where is your basis for this statement?

Unfortunately I can not post documents as they were all on my other laptop which got stolen a few weeks back so I am recalling this from memory, but I think it is near enough to what I read online from these doc's

- sorry to hear about the lap top, not wishing to poke fun, Is this another case of Psi-Ops?

If you spend a few hours searching the www you guys should be able to verify everything that I have said here.

Yeah - there are plenty of people who have - perhaps it would be better however if the argument was better balanced, rather than constantly reduced to this 'news' 'government' 'bbc' conspiracy.... This conspiracy stuff just makes the debate dull. Might as well accept that if there is a cover-up, we can only go on the basis of what we can see, read and hear in the media, press and internet. The very places of conspiracy, apparently.

Peace to you too.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by FireMoon

 

yeah becuase its really hard to change your location if your caught out, isn't it?

you eager believers are such suckers. Your going to struggle to explain how the police managed to see the lighthouse from the location they were brought to on the night of the "sighting"


[edit on 17-8-2009 by yeti101]

So you are calling Halt a liar then? Even though it was the first time Halt had ever been back to the site since he left the military?

The first sighting, did include a a part from where, the Lighthouse could be seen. The witnesses themselves made it plain they knew what the Lighthouse as and that., it wasn't that they were seeing.


Not my problem that researchers had all made a huge mistake about where they claim Halt had his sighting. The fact is, the moment Halt, showed the film crew where it actually happened, the guy who said it was a lighthouse admitted he was wrong...

You want to call Halt a liar, that's fine by me, but don't do it on here under the anonymity of a forum, contact him personally and do it to his *face*, as it were. Then make it plain you will publish, for public consumption, the entirety of his reply to you.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by FireMoon]

- Why would the BBC be interested in dis-informing its viewers and readers? The Beeb has some of the most liberal, forward thinking journalists in the world, producing intelligent, informed articles, news and debate.

Yes, the same BBC that had a pull a documentary about 9/11 on the day of its' transmission after they received a huge number of complaints that anyone with a rational case to argue had been deliberately ignored and only the barking mad allowed to talk about it..

The same BBC, that under its' broadcasting charter, is barred from discussing UFOs as a *serious subject*... and was forced to censure one of its' own staff who had the temerity to ignore that rule. See the case of Nicky Campbell and his phone in show from the 1990s

[edit on 17-8-2009 by FireMoon]

The farmer did not keep animals, nor was he a witness.

Again totally wrong. The Halt sighting was corroborated and still is by a guy living in farmhouse next to the forest. He's been interviewed on film about a dozen times on the subject, but still people deny he exists.. Not only him but a married couple have also been interviewed on film about their sighting the night of the first incident...

Made a mistake wrong subject.

[edit on 17/8/09 by Waitingsolong]

reply to post by FireMoon


Well look. The day the BBC will report that UFOs exist is probably the day one will land in the Blue Peter garden. We all accept that. I dont know which 9/11 documentary you are talking about, so i cant comment - I saw a good one that debunked 'Loose Change' though - anyone remember that Loose Chnage ? I thought it was going to be a feature film, but they didnt have enough maerial once they stripped out the stuff that wasnt based on fact. but agasin, perhaps that was part of the conspiracy.

The BBC's done its fair share of interesting documentaries on UFO's, as has channel 4, and Channel 5, recently.

What you dont seem to be open to is that people like Yeti and myself are obviously open-minded people that wouldnt be on this fourm if we didnt enjoy reading / watching / hearing and debating stuff about UFOs.

I actually like the Rendleshem Forest story, I actually do believe UFOs exist and have landed. But I would also like to have a clear and rational debate that hears BOTH sides of the argument. So if noone can discuss it with a proportion of rational argument (and i talk about all people on both sides of the argument) - then its only fair that people should be able to express an opinion that you or I might not like Lets drink to that...



[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

reply to post by danny-arclight


the BBC has never made a decent documentary on UIFOs simply because of the Broadcasting act. Yes, other channels have because they are not governed by a charter that stops them from doing so..

I don;t believe many UFo reports are anything to do with aliens, but with Rendlesham i do get sick of the misinformation that is peddled by skeptics as 8fact*, when the truth is often that. They haven't done any work other than, look it up on a few web sites..

Anyone who tells you that there wasn't an independent witness who saw the lights hovering above the forest and the lights of , one can only suppose, Halt's party, is simply telling lies

However, as his existence alone, pretty much, destroys the idea of the Lighthouse theory, he is conveniently forgotten and made out to be spurious..

His testimony also negates the idea it was a meteor as he saw the object hovering above the forest...

The best documentary ever made by the BBC was called The Power of Nightmares , It shows how Governments use FEAR as a control tool , if youve not seen it I seriously recommend everybody gives it a watch
As for Rendlesham forest , we will never know for sure what went on , but I just cant believe that qualified USAF personnel cant tell the difference between a lighthouse or spotlights and a UFO .

[edit on 17-8-2009 by gortex]

Did you just see BBC news 24 @ 20:50 BST???

The interviewer and interviewee just talking normally about alien undersea bases!!

bl**dy amazing to see on TV

www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

For anyone wishing to see someone who actually bothered to do some proper research into the Lighthouse theory..

Plus independent witnesses

www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

[edit on 17-8-2009 by FireMoon]

reply to post by yeti101

where in the UK do you live? Orkney? Do you have tv or radio in your area? My god youve never heard of the term "banana skin" ? I find that quite staggering

Dude, although I fully understand what the phrase implies, that is the first time I've ever heard it being used so get off your high horse with the other poster, please.

reply to post by gortex

As for Rendlesham forest , we will never know for sure what went on , but I just cant believe that qualified USAF personnel cant tell the difference between a lighthouse or spotlights and a UFO .

They had a similar problem with schools and terrorists hideouts in Iraq if I remember correctly.

reply to post by moocowman


Sorry dont get what you mean

Originally posted by Clickfoot

Originally posted by waveguide3
No. The banana skin reference is part of the English language culture

Well given that I lived there for over 30 years and never heard of it, I'd say "no it isn't".

However, not important.

Yeah banana skin means slip-up or something dodgy that could cause a problem and/or embarrassment. It's not often used, but it's definitely part of past English culture.

It's usage doesn't prove it was anything serious, it could apply to a mistakenly identified source for the lights, rather than a UFO. But.... there's other evidence to consider about all that.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by john124]

reply to post by Clickfoot


Not one single piece of significant information has ever been released from the Mod. Any FILES on the Alan Godfrey incident or the Kilgallen 1954 Caldbeck UFO incident press release and significantly major UFO incidents. They have released crumbs of information and it is a joke.

Thats because the whole FOIA release thing is a PR exercise to show how open our Governments are , the good stuff will either stay hidden [ lost]or has already been shredded , its a case of "throw them a few morsels to chew on and it will keep them happy for a while " , and it works

[edit on 17-8-2009 by gortex]

The Government does, at times, create a rod for its' own back.. Take the Woomera tapes of the Bluestreak rocket tests... I believe they filmed all 86 odd launches...

One lone launch was cancelled due to the secure area , apparently, being penetrated by both a UFO and some unknown figures..
Now, this whole incident might well have a perfectly logical explanation. However, it doesn't help when the only film of the launches that they can;t find, is guess which one? Oh yes, the one with the purported UFO on it.

reply to post by FireMoon


They dont give a dam mate , they are just laughing at us , as they have for the past 60 years , they have nothing to fear , we are a fragmented group of people who while strong in number , weak in organization , we speak as many single voices and so are not heard , we need to speak as one , at one time I thought that the Disclosure Project was the start of that ,an organization that would rally the troops and lead a march for the truth , but what have they done in the last 8 years ? . Its time to act , but can anybody really be bothered ?

reply to post by FireMoon


and what if they simply dont want to show their rocket failures to their enemies? This is nothing to do with UFO's this is simply propaganda. You dont show the enemy your own side losing! Your'e mixing alien conspiracy paranioia with cold war paranoia - both exist, but one was becuase there was a war going on and one was because its easier for some people to interpret this as a conspiracy involving an extra-terrestrial race. The conspiracy was real! the conspiracy was a plan to hide failure from the patriotic US/UK govts - the terrible thought one of their own missiles / rockets failed.... Like taking prozac and then having to admit you're impotent... thats what they didnt want you to see... not little green men running round waving their arms telling us not to drop bombs on each other.

KNOW YOUR HISTORY. IT WILL BE FAR KINDER TO YOU.

Besides, where is this proof or artic;e of the launch being infiltrated? Do you have a link?

edit: jsu trealised the thing had an awful flight record: looks like the good old brits sold the thing as a job lot to anyone who would take it: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by danny-arclight]

Mind you, those pejksy aliens really had their sights set on the right kind of nuclear threat to the world. Here's the breakdown of the Blue Streak Test Flight data (according to WikiPedia):
Flight No. Second stage (Corali) Third Stage (Astris) Payload Launch date Mission Notes
F1 n/a n/a n/a 5 June 1964 Successful flight
F2 n/a n/a n/a 21 October 1964 Successful flight
F3 n/a n/a n/a 23 March 1965 Successful flight
F4 untested untested untested 24 May 1966 Successful flight
F5 untested untested untested 15 November 1966 Successful flight
F6.1 failed untested untested 4 June 1967 2nd stage failed to ignite
F6.2 failed failed failed 6 December 1967 2nd stage failed to separate
F7 successful failed failed 29 November 1968 3rd stage failure after separation
F8 successful failed failed 3 July 1969 3rd stage failure after separation
F9 successful successful failed 24 June 1970 Fairing failed to separate
F11 successful successful failed 5 November 1970 Guidance system failed
F12 untested untested untested n/a Delivered to French Guiana
F13 untested untested untested n/a Delivered to Scottish Aeronautical Museum, Edinburgh
F14 untested untested untested n/a Delivered to Deutsches Museum, Munich
F15 untested untested untested n/a Delivered to Euro Space Center, Redu, Belgium
F16 n/a n/a n/a n/a Not finally assembled
F17 n/a n/a n/a n/a Parts only completed
F18 n/a n/a n/a n/a Parts only completed

[edit] Related projects