4705 replies to this topic

[Matt Vinyl]

Just wanted to pop in and say I've finally read all 298 pages of this thread (thus far!) by getting through a few each day. I like the (generally) honest cut and thrust of well-honed debate throughout.

My point of view for the majority of these cases is: "We'll probably never really know." The odds are in favour naturally, of most of them being well, something natural. But there's always the possibility, however slim, that some of these were the real deal.

The Kumburgaz (I have to control myself to not chuckle at the name!) case is interesting - particularly Zoser's first pic. However, I think the video is being a tad disingenuous when it suggests that there is a visible 'alien crew member' present. Not just because they automatically assume it's alien, but that it is in-fact anything alive at all. Not once do I see any movement there (that is not directly related to the entire image moving - camera handling issues). The likely result is of course, that it's a boat facing towards the cameraman (but let's not go down the angle-of-sight debate again like with the aircraft case posed earlier. lol!)

Anyway, thanks to Zoser in the main for the 'interesting' testimonies which have certainly kept me engaged over the last few weeks.

I'll go back to lurking now...

Edit Reason: Unintended use of banned word (was part of another non-offensive word)!

Edited by Matt Vinyl, 26 November 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[synchronomy]

Matt Vinyl, on 26 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Just wanted to pop in and say I've finally read all 298 pages of this thread (thus far!) by getting through a few each day. I like the (generally) honest cut and thrust of well-honed debate throughout.

My point of view for the majority of these cases is: "We'll probably never really know." The odds are in favour naturally, of most of them being well, something natural. But there's always the possibility, however slim, that some of these were the real deal.

The Kumburgaz (I have to control myself to not chuckle at the name!) case is interesting - particularly Zoser's first pic. However, I think the video is being a tad disingenuous when it suggests that there is a visible 'alien crew member' present. Not just because they automatically assume it's alien, but that it is in-fact anything alive at all. Not once do I see any movement there (that is not directly related to the entire image moving - camera handling issues). The likely result is of course, that it's a boat facing towards the cameraman (but let's not go down the angle-of-sight debate again like with the aircraft case posed earlier. lol!)

Anyway, thanks to Zoser in the main for the 'interesting' testimonies which have certainly kept me engaged over the last few weeks.

I'll go back to lurking now...

Edit Reason: Unintended use of banned word (was part of another non-offensive word)!

You bring some refreshing insight to the thread.
Please don't just lurk...comment as you wish.
If you've chewed your way through the whole thread we want your input.

[TheMacGuffin]

Someone posted a video that had satellite pictures of UFOs around the British coast, including triangles, cylinders, and glowing underwater things.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

TheMacGuffin, on 26 November 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Someone posted a video that had satellite pictures of UFOs around the British coast, including triangles, cylinders, and glowing underwater things.

well, imaginative, and I like the music, but since he doesn't seem to say where any of these things are, and just seems to assume that any glitch or anything that looks vaguely like a shape must have been blacked out for Security reasons, it's difficult to say anything further really.

[TheMacGuffin]

This is Col. Charles Halt's latest interview on the Rendlesham case.  He said that he would have preferred that the whole case had not been publicized, but it came out anyway.  He didn't even know the complete story in 1980 nor was he told who really investigated it.  Not even Lord Hill-Norton could find out that information.  These UFOs were spotted over the base and on other bases in the area, as well as by several different radars.  

Halt doesn't really know what they were or where they came from, but he denies that the UFOs were definitely not the lighthouses.  He also met Col. John Alexander who was still on active duty at the time and interviewed him about the case.  The NSA was also very interested in the case and discussed it with him in detail.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 27 November 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Matt Vinyl]

synchronomy, on 26 November 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

You bring some refreshing insight to the thread.
Please don't just lurk...comment as you wish.
If you've chewed your way through the whole thread we want your input.

Thanks you sir, appreciate the warm welcome. I think I've been lurking here for a good few years now - as I mentioned briefly elsewhere, although I've commented minimally, I feel like I know a lot of you guys just from the daily reading sessions.

Regarding Rendlesham, I visited the location as a youngster whilst we were on holiday around that way. My Dad has always been keen on aviation and we were always trawled around such locations (not always with the greatest will!) when they were nearby. As an aside, he simply won't accept anything 'ET' exists - but some experiences he had whilst monitoring the airwaves via radio, not to mention the skies tested that belief a few times. But that's for another time.

[zoser]

Matt Vinyl, on 26 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Just wanted to pop in and say I've finally read all 298 pages of this thread (thus far!) by getting through a few each day. I like the (generally) honest cut and thrust of well-honed debate throughout.

My point of view for the majority of these cases is: "We'll probably never really know." The odds are in favour naturally, of most of them being well, something natural. But there's always the possibility, however slim, that some of these were the real deal.

The Kumburgaz (I have to control myself to not chuckle at the name!) case is interesting - particularly Zoser's first pic. However, I think the video is being a tad disingenuous when it suggests that there is a visible 'alien crew member' present. Not just because they automatically assume it's alien, but that it is in-fact anything alive at all. Not once do I see any movement there (that is not directly related to the entire image moving - camera handling issues). The likely result is of course, that it's a boat facing towards the cameraman (but let's not go down the angle-of-sight debate again like with the aircraft case posed earlier. lol!)

Anyway, thanks to Zoser in the main for the 'interesting' testimonies which have certainly kept me engaged over the last few weeks.

I'll go back to lurking now...

Edit Reason: Unintended use of banned word (was part of another non-offensive word)!

Well done for wading through the thread!  Your more than welcome.  It would be great to hear more about your father's experiences.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 27 November 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

This is Col. Charles Halt's latest interview on the Rendlesham case.  He said that he would have preferred that the whole case had not been publicized, but it came out anyway.  He didn't even know the complete story in 1980 nor was he told who really investigated it.  Not even Lord Hill-Norton could find out that information.  These UFOs were spotted over the base and on other bases in the area, as well as by several different radars.  

Halt doesn't really know what they were or where they came from, but he denies that the UFOs were definitely not the lighthouses.  He also met Col. John Alexander who was still on active duty at the time and interviewed him about the case.  The NSA was also very interested in the case and discussed it with him in detail.

One of the finest and well supported cases ever.  One of my personal favourites and lots of consistencies with other nuclear air base incidents.  Never could this case be attributed to misidentification or hysteria.

It's nice to see you back on the thread MacG.  Keep em coming.

Z

Edited by zoser, 27 November 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 27 November 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

This is Col. Charles Halt's latest interview on the Rendlesham case.  He said that he would have preferred that the whole case had not been publicized, but it came out anyway.  He didn't even know the complete story in 1980 nor was he told who really investigated it.  Not even Lord Hill-Norton could find out that information.  These UFOs were spotted over the base and on other bases in the area, as well as by several different radars.  

Halt doesn't really know what they were or where they came from, but he denies that the UFOs were definitely not the lighthouses.  He also met Col. John Alexander who was still on active duty at the time and interviewed him about the case.  The NSA was also very interested in the case and discussed it with him in detail.

Quoth Col Halt At 35:30:

"The astronomer debunker who I have sat down and had a drink with must be on the payroll of someone or something, because he is adamant that I saw a lighthouse; I did see a lighthouse but I also saw something else.  There's no way I'm going to convince him so let him think what he wants to think................I'm not going to debate with these people because when you have a closed mind, there's no sense talking with someone like that".

Zoser sympathises with Col Halt entirely on that point.

Edited by zoser, 27 November 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Good to see the good Col.'s still sticking to his guns and not letting those who want to insist that he was deranged or deluded (or possibly stoned, which some have suggested) bully him.

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Quoth Col Halt At 35:30:

"The astronomer debunker who I have sat down and had a drink with must be on the payroll of someone or something, because he is adamant that I saw a lighthouse; I did see a lighthouse but I also saw something else.  There's no way I'm going to convince him so let him think what he wants to think................I'm not going to debate with these people because when you have a closed mind, there's no sense talking with someone like that".

Zoser sympathises with Col Halt entirely on that point.

It's a classic case Zoser.  The military really buried this one for a good reason...the ETH derails their agenda.

[zoser]

synchronomy, on 27 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

It's a classic case Zoser.  The military really buried this one for a good reason...the ETH derails their agenda.

Yes I agree; no power on earth could debunk this one; too many testimonies and trace evidence.  Not even attributable to the black military or area 51 because of the exotic technology involved.  If I had to pick a case that was best evidence of all for ET this would have to be it.

[booNyzarC]

Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth.

Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 27 November 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth.

Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect.

He's the guy that Col Halt is referring to.  Nothing more than a casual expert who prefers to disregard the word of those who were present.  I have seen his documentary.  Nothing but wishful thinking.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 27 November 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth.

Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect.

Can you briefly outline what Mr. R may have speculated?