198 replies to this topic

[White Unicorn]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I know nothing at all about that--absolutely nothing.

Here's a partial list of witnesses who have talked about it over the years, about 50 of them, but that's all I know.

http://www.google.co...-TUX3h48uNe_sHw

The list of witnesses is much longer!
"If you know what's good for your career it didn't happen and keep your mouth shut but you can play with the other guys who saw it happen if you want!"  There were those at the base with cameras who were actively seeking and even creating some fabrications themselves.

It was difficult to sort out all the fluff as to what was really going down even if you were there.  Several things really happened there! Some witnesses of one thing did not see the other event and visa versa.  Base became littered with civilian UFO researchers and media with all kinds of stories so who can know what's true or not.  Some were atmospheric reactions, one was an ally high technology and the other was ET related.

[TheMacGuffin]

White Unicorn, on 06 October 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

The list of witnesses is much longer!
"If you know what's good for your career it didn't happen and keep your mouth shut but you can play with the other guys who saw it happen if you want!"  There were those at the base with cameras who were actively seeking and even creating some fabrications themselves.

It was difficult to sort out all the fluff as to what was really going down even if you were there.  Several things really happened there! Some witnesses of one thing did not see the other event and visa versa.  Base became littered with civilian UFO researchers and media with all kinds of stories so who can know what's true or not.  Some were atmospheric reactions, one was an ally high technology and the other was ET related.

Something landed and at least for ET "entities" were seen, and a number of UFOs were seen on radar.  There is a great deal of documentation on this case, including pictures and videos, some of which researchers have managed to uncover over the years.

There were also British witnesses, including civilians, military and the police.  This was a very big UFO event, more than many people realize.

Perhaps this is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said "you can't tell the people".  What are they supposed to tell them?

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

There are even pictures of one of these UFOs on the ground and of the radar scope that detected three or four of them, which I have posted here.

If you are referring to the two images below, please share with us how you authenticated them to be what you claim them to be.

TheMacGuffin, on 28 September 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

What have we here?

Do you notice the word "Illustration" in the bottom left corner?  How do you know this is an actual image of a radar scope from one of those nights in that location?

I found a duplicate of this image in a blog here, which I found to be an interesting read.  (It is about two thirds of the way down and the title starts with "28th February 2012")

Can you share the source page on blogspot.com for the above image that you linked?  (Not the image link, but the link to the page where the image appears.)

TheMacGuffin, on 28 September 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

That was sure some crappy video.  Which of you jokers separated the pictures from the documents, anyway?



And no, that was not a picture of Sergeant B!

This image did come from one of the UK releases of UFO files if I'm not mistaken, but how did you go about determining that it was from Rendlesham?

I found it here, but one of the comments below on that page seems to indicate that there isn't really a way to tie this image to Rendlesham.  Can you also share the original source page for your linked image?  I'd like to read whatever it says there.




Please understand McG, I'm not making a counter claim that what you've stated is false.  I'm merely asking for confirmation about how you've reached the conclusions that you have and how you have vetted these images, if at all.

Thanks.

[White Unicorn]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Something landed and at least for ET "entities" were seen, and a number of UFOs were seen on radar.  There is a great deal of documentation on this case, including pictures and videos, some of which researchers have managed to uncover over the years.

There were also British witnesses, including civilians, military and the police.  This was a very big UFO event, more than many people realize.

Perhaps this is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said "you can't tell the people".  What are they supposed to tell them?

Even high tech needs fueling  ......

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 06 October 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

If you are referring to the two images below, please share with us how you authenticated them to be what you claim them to be.




Do you notice the word "Illustration" in the bottom left corner?  How do you know this is an actual image of a radar scope from one of those nights in that location?

I found a duplicate of this image in a blog here, which I found to be an interesting read.  (It is about two thirds of the way down and the title starts with "28th February 2012")

Can you share the source page on blogspot.com for the above image that you linked?  (Not the image link, but the link to the page where the image appears.)

Please understand McG, I'm not making a counter claim that what you've stated is false.  I'm merely asking for confirmation about how you've reached the conclusions that you have and how you have vetted these images, if at all.

Thanks.

Well, Boon, I'd like to help you more with this if I could, but what I told you is really all I know--or all I could find out.  I definitely don't know all the details myself.

I have read (or heard) that Sen. James Exon was involved with an inquiry about this incident but the results have never been released.  Beyond that, I just don't know anything else.

I'm sorry.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 October 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Well, Boon, I'd like to help you more with this if I could, but what I told you is really all I know--or all I could find out.  I definitely don't know all the details myself.

I have read (or heard) that Sen. James Exon was involved with an inquiry about this incident but the results have never been released.  Beyond that, I just don't know anything else.

I'm sorry.

No worries, thanks for clarifying.  I do recommend giving that blog entry a read when you have the time.  It appears as though Robert Hastings interviewed some people who contend they were radar operators on duty during the events and that they not only saw it on radar but also saw something out the window from the tower.  I don't know what to think of it myself, but I know many would probably consider this as confirmatory.  As mentioned, it's about two thirds of the way down, but if you just scroll until you see the Radar illustration, it's the entry directly above it.

You also mentioned up above in post 138 something about video documentation that may have been unearthed.  Is that actual video from the nights in question?  Or were you just referring to documentaries about the events?

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 06 October 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

You also mentioned up above in post 138 something about video documentation that may have been unearthed.  Is that actual video from the nights in question?  Or were you just referring to documentaries about the events?

I have heard that there were actual videos of these events, but I have no idea where those could be found, apart from some still images that might crop up here and there.  Beyond that, I'm not sure.

There may have been a dust up between the British and Americans over this, which made the issue even more sensitive, especially given that it took place during the Cold War.  American personnel may have confiscated pictures and cameras from some of the British on the scene and things like that, which raised issues of sovereignty.  

Not to mention that there were perhaps 500 "tactical" nuclear weapons being stored there that no one likes to talk about even today.  There are many reasons why the US government would be happy to leave this whole incident in the past.

[White Unicorn]

Some were atmospheric reactions, one was an ally high technology and the other was ET related.
I stand by this though others may scuff at the last one, they just don't KNOW because they weren't there.
This is a good case for UFO people to study! I don't because  it became like a Rosswell thing too many smoke screens and I don't have to prove to myself it happened.   
  

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Something landed and at least for ET "entities" were seen, and a number of UFOs were seen on radar.  There is a great deal of documentation on this case, including pictures and videos, some of which researchers have managed to uncover over the years.

There were also British witnesses, including civilians, military and the police.  This was a very big UFO event, more than many people realize.

Perhaps this is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said "you can't tell the people".  What are they supposed to tell them?

Edited by White Unicorn, 06 October 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I have heard that there were actual videos of these events, but I have no idea where those could be found, apart from some still images that might crop up here and there.  Beyond that, I'm not sure.

There may have been a dust up between the British and Americans over this, which made the issue even more sensitive, especially given that it took place during the Cold War.  American personnel may have confiscated pictures and cameras from some of the British on the scene and things like that, which raised issues of sovereignty.  

Not to mention that there were perhaps 500 "tactical" nuclear weapons being stored there that no one likes to talk about even today.  There are many reasons why the US government would be happy to leave this whole incident in the past.

Okay, thanks.  Yes, I've heard that there was footage as well, though most of that comes from Larry Warren if I'm not mistaken, and his account differs pretty significantly from those of Halt and Penniston in many ways.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 06 October 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Okay, thanks.  Yes, I've heard that there was footage as well, though most of that comes from Larry Warren if I'm not mistaken, and his account differs pretty significantly from those of Halt and Penniston in many ways.

Not just him.  There were others involved, but they did know part of the story.  Col. Halt was right that the investigation was never really in his hands to begin with, and that it was moved up to higher levels.

I also think Halt was a very good officer who was trying to protect his men as much as he could.  Many people believe this and respect him for it, but he is correct that it also affected his military career.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 October 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[White Unicorn]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Not just him.  There were others involved, but they did know part of the story.  Col. Halt was right that the investigation was never really in his hands to begin with, and that it was moved up to higher levels.

I also think Halt was a very good officer who was trying to protect his men as much as he could.  Many people believe this and respect him for it, but he is correct that it also affected his military career.

You are so right, it was moved to higher levels and he was a very good officer to his men

Have to add I really thought this event at base was going to be  "the day the civilian world finds out about ET " but it didn't end up that way just like all past events

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Not just him.  There were others involved, but they did know part of the story.  Col. Halt was right that the investigation was never really in his hands to begin with, and that it was moved up to higher levels.

Well, it has been quite a while since I looked into the case with any serious depth, but now that you mention it I think Penniston may have mentioned something about that at one point too.  That said, I do have a hard time believing much of what Penniston presents after he has paid several visits to the memory regression therapists.  I'm of the firm opinion that memory regression is just as likely to implant false memories as it is to retrieve hidden ones, if not moreso.

Add to this his binary debacle and inconsistencies with his notebook and he just has no credibility in my mind.  I honestly think he is making things up as he goes and has fabricated evidence.  I don't believe for a second that he took casts of the 'landing site' impressions for example.  I'm almost 100% certain that he created those many years after the original events took place in an effort to bolster his story, and I can't get past the glaring inconsistencies with his companion (Burroughs) during the supposed 45 minute investigation of the landed UFO.  Burroughs has stated that this didn't happen, and his own account (and others) culminate with the confirmation that they had been chasing after the beacon from the Orford Ness lighthouse.

[White Unicorn]

booNyzarC, on 06 October 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, it has been quite a while since I looked into the case with any serious depth, but now that you mention it I think Penniston may have mentioned something about that at one point too.  That said, I do have a hard time believing much of what Penniston presents after he has paid several visits to the memory regression therapists.  I'm of the firm opinion that memory regression is just as likely to implant false memories as it is to retrieve hidden ones, if not moreso.

Add to this his binary debacle and inconsistencies with his notebook and he just has no credibility in my mind.  I honestly think he is making things up as he goes and has fabricated evidence.  I don't believe for a second that he took casts of the 'landing site' impressions for example.  I'm almost 100% certain that he created those many years after the original events took place in an effort to bolster his story, and I can't get past the glaring inconsistencies with his companion (Burroughs) during the supposed 45 minute investigation of the landed UFO.  Burroughs has stated that this didn't happen, and his own account (and others) culminate with the confirmation that they had been chasing after the beacon from the Orford Ness lighthouse.

Forgive me for this nasty comment but Penniston wasn't wrapped too tight to begin with.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 06 October 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Well, it has been quite a while since I looked into the case with any serious depth, but now that you mention it I think Penniston may have mentioned something about that at one point too.  That said, I do have a hard time believing much of what Penniston presents after he has paid several visits to the memory regression therapists.  I'm of the firm opinion that memory regression is just as likely to implant false memories as it is to retrieve hidden ones, if not moreso.

I think there were other sites and other people involved besides this well-known group.

[White Unicorn]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

I think there were other sites and other people involved besides this well-known group.

Right...the disinformation smoke screens live on through the people who want to go public as well as being the most vunerable, then no one takes it seriously enough to bother to look at the other sites.