4705 replies to this topic

[zoser]

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

Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth.

You mean he found a nearby lighthouse.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

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.

What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they.

[zoser]

747400, on 27 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they.

Yep; that's the root of his wonderful 'in depth' theory.

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

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.

Unfortunately, there are better cases, but we'll never hear about them because the military and/or black ops have been successful in covering them up.
I have a family member that works for General Electric in aircraft engines.  A friend of his works for them too, but in their "black-ops" division.  They've been good friends for many years, but the black-ops guy won't even tell him what he has for lunch while at work!

[G Donnelly]

We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case?
No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages.
Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious.
I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO.
If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters.
They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas.

Edited by Walnut Whip, 27 November 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[zoser]

Walnut Whip, on 27 November 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case?
No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages.
Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious.
I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO.
If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters.
They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas.

Never heard that theory before; I'm doubtful because as you suggest the C-L craft spewed out lethal radiation.

It would be interesting to see what you have on it though.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Walnut Whip, on 27 November 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case?
No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages.
Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious.
I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO.
If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters.
They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas.

The coincidence in dates is rather interesting: Rendlesham 24–25, 25–26 and 26–27 December 1980, the Texas incident December 29, 1980.
Though a squadron of helicopters would hardly have escorted it across the Atlantic. Who knows, though, maybe, something curious having appeared in U.S. airspace, so soon after the goings-on at Rendlesham, they might have wondered if there was a connection and decided to take no chances, and decided to escort it off the premises, or at least to keep a close eye on it.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

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.

There is more to it than that zoser, and the "documentary" doesn't cover everything, it was really just a brief overview that he gave at an Unconvention.

747400, on 27 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

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

There is too much for a brief outline.  Feel free to peruse his website if you're actually interested in understanding what he has presented.
http://www.ianridpat.../rendlesham.htm

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

You mean he found a nearby lighthouse.

Much much more to it than that.

747400, on 27 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they.

Much much much more to it than that.

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yep; that's the root of his wonderful 'in depth' theory.

Much much much much more to it than that.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 27 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Much much much much more to it than that.

Wait a minute; are you saying that there is more to his theory than just the lighthouse?

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Wait a minute; are you saying that there is more to his theory than just the lighthouse?

Nothing slips past you zoser.  Sharp as a tack!

[G Donnelly]

747400, on 27 November 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

The coincidence in dates is rather interesting: Rendlesham 24–25, 25–26 and 26–27 December 1980, the Texas incident December 29, 1980.
Though a squadron of helicopters would hardly have escorted it across the Atlantic. Who knows, though, maybe, something curious having appeared in U.S. airspace, so soon after the goings-on at Rendlesham, they might have wondered if there was a connection and decided to take no chances, and decided to escort it off the premises, or at least to keep a close eye on it.

The way these things whizz about in the sky,two days is child's play.
However you could have multiple sightings and none two are the same.
It would be an almighty coincidence but I'm sure I'm didnt imagine that book.
Btw,Zoser  I borrowed it from the library but there should be a record of it on the Internet.

Edited by Walnut Whip, 27 November 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

"But I know that the first sighting coincided with the burn-up in the atmosphere of an exceptionally bright meteor, and that the airmen who saw the flashing UFO between the pine trees were looking straight at the Orford Ness lighthouse".

Ah, so basically it relies on a string of coincidences, then.
Stil, it's a theory that's worth considering, but I do hope people won't get as angry as often seems to happen if I don't embrace it straight away but perhaps will give it the consideration that it deserves and put it with all the various other theories that have been put forward. This seems to be an interesting aspect of all these things; people are laughed at, sneered at and mocked for jumping to the conclusion that something must be an ET craft, but if someone comes up with a Rational explanation, then the people who wear the badge of Skepticism with pride will happily accept that with open arms. I do hope that the same stringent standards are applied to these rational theories as they are to the more exotic suggestions.


* Incidentally, what is the most popular Rational explanation for the Cash/Landrum affair? It's surely indisputable that there was solid evidence there. is it going to be Military Secret projects? (in this case, a remarkably un-secret one, though)?

i know this is all in bold, but I rather like it.

Edited by 747400, 27 November 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Oppono Astos]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

You mean he found a nearby lighthouse.

At least he recognized the lighthouse,unlike Halt.

[G Donnelly]

Just got the title of the book...
"Sky Crash" by Jenny Randles,Brenda Butler and Dot Street.

Edited by Walnut Whip, 27 November 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

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.

Unless the lighthouse was up in the air and showing up on radar in various locations, what they saw was definitely not the lighthouse.

Many times that night, UFOs were seen in opposite directions from the infamous lighthouse.