Ironically, after extensive scientific analysis by the experts, it still remains unexplained! That right there is the actual clue.



Because there's not enough information to form an actual conclusion... all there is is possibilities.

Plasma event sounds ever so much better than swamp gas.

Lilly, as usual, spot on

Cheers,
Badeskov

Because nothing in the radar eliminates plasma as a possibility. And it is still only a possibility, not the explanation - otherwise it wouldn't still be unexplained!



Because such phenomena are extremely rare and he had probably never seen it before, let alone even heard about it during his training.

Cheers,
Badeskov



It does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Yes, I am aware of that, but I don't see what that has to do with anything, as plasma still doesn't act like a regular weather phenomemon, which you clearly fail to understand.



Easy, because in STT mode it locks onto a single target. But it still doesn't eliminate reflective plasma as, radar wise, that would basically act as a big, metal object. It is simple physics. OK, maybe not so basic



Apparently not!



Yet, you have still to point to that single component in a radar system that eliminates reflective plasma events and how they do it. You can't, I know. Hitherto your explanations entails that plasma is magically removed along with other clutter. Revelation: it doesn't work like that. And I know very well what those "japanese characters" represent, which I think is rather obvious to most.



You obviously don't understand the physics behind what is actually going on. To put it very simple:

A spherical, reflective plasma phenomenon acts just like a reflective metal sphere with respect to radar.

I can't put it simpler than that! How do you filter that out?! I am still waiting for the response to that one.



Can you point me to the exact paragraph where plasma events are excluded in an official report?! And I am sure that all those highly experienced radar operators and commercial and military aircrews that you so prefer to refer to would look at this possibility as very real and very viable. I don't see them saying that a plasma event is certainly not the cause of what they saw. So it remains unexplained! To echo Stellar, all we have are possibilities and no conclusions.



Honestly, by all means of respect, that just shows that you apparently haven't understood any of what I posted here, even though I tried to make it rather simple. Again:

Reflective plasma phenomenon = solid metal object (in radar bands).

Now, again, for the umpteenth time, how do you filter that out? And please in tech jargon, lets get down to the nitty gritty details?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Again, please point me to that particular page in that particular report or scientific paper that states that plasma is not the cause. And wasn't it the UK that concluded in their Condign Report that sighthings could most likely be explained by either misidentifications or rarely seen and not well known meteorological/atmospheric phenomena?

Where are the experts disputing that particular conclusion?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited to remove extra concluded...

Ok let me see if I have this right? Post 1755 of one trillion+ post to come on the subject" RPP,SOL,UFO`s,ET`s wit or wit out cheese"thats what gets us into wars so cut to the facts.Radar is? Perfect?

I wanted to expand on this subject and add a little twist to it...

The best evidence on Earth of ETs could be US. Nobody really knows for sure exactly how homo sapiens appeared. Remember, scientists have never found the "missing link." Maybe the reason for that is this "missing link" isn't of Earthly origins...

Also, as advanced as ETs obviously are by the mere fact they could be coming here, they could be deliberately making sure they leave no trace, so as not to disturb the social system on Earth. Think about it...what kind of upheaval would this cause in society, in the establishments of religion, among other things.

And I'll have mine well done

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

While there are still holes and small missing parts in our evolutionary history, it is actually suprisingly complete. And no where are the holes so big that an alien civilization could interject their own "seeds"



Well, maybe that is what is happening. But that just means that we have no way of knowing and thus no evidence for it.



Oh, I could easily see some fundamentalist religious people have a problem, but if ET is benign I don't really see major panic breaking out all over the globe.

Cheers,
Badeskov

we are all made of star stuff in the first place,even the late great Carl Segan quoted this. So we are all space creatures and what a spacey bunch we are LoL DONTEATUS

Iv,e always loved that quote

Apparently, none of the case files I presented, were not the result of any plasma phenomena and why those case files remain unexplained.

It does, and plasma has no more bearing on the UFO incidents in question, than swamp gas or even earthquake lights.

The real clue is that you didn't review the videos I posted and heard what was said in those videos.

Once again, I have to stop you there.

Apparently, you are proving that you do not understand the nature of today's radar technology. Now, I mentioned that the radar system is a lookdown, all-weather system with intelligent operating capability which eliminates radar-rellective objects in STT mode, including other aircraft in the vincinity of the primary target that the pilot designated and locked with his cursor to where only that one object is presented on the scope,

I am coming across that you think that just because the radar sends out a signal, it is going to receive returns from every radar-reflective object in the area, but that only depends on what mode the radar is in because it will reject ALL radar targets from the scope if it is in STT mode, and if it is tracking an object such as was the case in that incident, the object tracked, was not any form of plasma and there is another reason why! Do you know what it was that proved that plasma had nothing to do with the case file in quesition?

Apparently, you are unaware of what I am even talking about. First of all, neither pilot made any visual contact with the object, which is understandable when you are concentrating on the object on the scope and the fact it was dark, but there were many on the ground who watched the encounter and watched as the F-16's passed over the triangular-shaped object.

So in that regards, ground observers watched as the F-16 passed over an triangular-shaped craft that had nothing to do with any form of plasma, which you should have known if you were familiar with that particular incident.

I figured you didn't know because you are still pushing the "plasma" envelope when ground-based eyewitnesses were reporting an artificial craf.

I flinched when you posted that!

I am familiar with the British MoD and once again, I see that you are not.

A case in point! The British MoD had claimed that the Rendlesham Incidents document of Colonel Halt, didn't exist, but eventually, it was found that the MoD not only knew the document existed, but deliberately withheld the document from the public until it admitted that it did indeed exist and released the document it claimed didn't exist.

The document revealed that not only were there UFOs in the sky, but there was one in the forest and that physical evidence was left behind by the object in the forest.





There are other such issues with the MoD as well, but I hope you are getting the picture that the British MoD is in the same boat as the CIA in regards to UFOs. What the British MoD was saying in public, wasn't what I was being told by those who were stationed at RAF Bentwaters during the UFO incidents, so I knew that the MoD was riding in the same "boat of deception" as the CIA.

Just the other day, I made that fact known about the CIA and its deceptive practices by posting historical facts on the U-2 and months earlier, on the Glomar Explorer. It clealy has been shown that the CIA was in fact, fomenting deception tactics against the public and now, declassified documents available under the FOIA, has shown that the CIA was deliberately misleading the public on UFOs just as the MoD had done with Colonel Halt's memo.

To sum it up, I can ascertain the level of knowledge a particular skeptic harbors on the UFO enigma by what they post.

What did I say about the radar as an all-weather system with ground-clutter rejection, both on land and on the sea. In addition, it has the ability to reject other aircraft in STT mode as well to where only the primary designated target is displayed on the scope and on the HUD. Or, it can display other aircraft while tracking a particular object in the TWS mode. There are many modes and sub-modes on air intercept radars and the radar will reject that, which has no bearing on the mission at hand.



Okay, now show me any plasma on this scope. Where is it? Don't refer to the lock diamond, it is not indicative of any plasma return.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9054/belradar.jpg

yes, I listed those modes and I also went thorugh how clutter elimination works and why it doesn't work for reflective plasmas, yet you keep rejecting it without a single factual piece of science to back you up.

And what did I say?! Reflective plasma can give a solid return just like an aircraft can, no matter what mode your are in. You have YET to show me any rebuttal of that. Whereas I have shown you the Hessdalen report, which you just brushed aside with no facts to back you up. Still waiting for something substantial.



And how would you know it isn't the lock diamond?! Or I for that matter?! Plasma can give a solid return just like an aircraft can.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Again with bloody Rendleshem....

Suffolk County Police Link

Obviously the CIA has been leaning heavily on these guys, since those black lines appear in all of the documents...



Source for the following Link-

Sgt Larry Warren


'James Archer'


Sgt. Adrian Bustinza

Bustinza described the object as a circular craft, bulging at the center and thinning towards the edges, with different colored lights on the top, sides and bottom. He said it was of "tremendous size" and was hovering and shifting position in the large clearing.

Sgt. John Burroughs


And of course British UFOlogist Jenny Randles, one of the original promoters of this case, had this to say in1998-



I'll leave you with something you can 'debunk' with the standard 'Tim Printy-esque' response.

Rumors of a RADAR contact were probably a bit of an exageration Link

Oh, I am sure you did as that goes against all of your beliefs.



No, I am not familiar with it to the detail, but that doesn't really matter - I'll get to why in a bit.



Yes, a UFO!!! Not ET, but something unknown. And the physical trace evidence is highly disputable.



Oh, I have no doubt there are issues with the MoD and their report, but I seriously don't see the need for this all-encompassing conspiracy to cover everything ET related up.



Oh, I am sure you can construe it that way. But lets look at it this way. The UK Government is one of the only Governments that has actively tried to make their internal findings possible and I don't see the world of science in an uproar over the Condign Report. Just because you don't like it and it has it's flaws (which any report of such size is bound to have), doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Cheers,
Badeskov

OK, now we are back into the highly disputed area of the socalled reliable eye witnesses. Yes, there were sightings, which was also why the Belgian Air Force decided that they had to react. But can you please point me to the exact minute.second in the youtube video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rcv_-OX9-WQ&feature=related) that you posted where it is stated that the UFO the F-16 pilots were tracking was observed by people on the ground?

And, yes, the triangular photo is definitely one of the highly disputable areas of this. So you don't need to bring that into the equation.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Printy raised alot of excellent points/questions with the so-called "official" ufological version of Rendleshem as did a pro-UFO SciFi Channel "expose" on the incident when the so-called military witnesses couldn't even agree on where the "UFO" landed. Heh, SciF wasted no time "breaking" the "new" story that ET made two landings that night. but Mr. Gumbel & SciFi never seemed interested again... wonder why?

Oh, but I do! But you on the other hand have shown that you either have no idea of how radar works or simply refuse to acknowledge that something can puncture your ET=UFO theory.



Yes, where lookdown has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand (which you elegantly skipped when explained to you the last time). And if you lock onto a reflective plasma, you will get a nice return that will keep your STT happy and thus keep it locked.



And I am coming across that you believe that if it is a natural phenomena the radar filters (be they hardware or software) can somehow magically eliminate it even though it has the radar return as coming from a metalic object!

You have yet to answer this question, despite repeated requests: do you dispute that a reflective plasma can act as a metallic object, with respect to radar?!

That is what this boils down to, pure and simple. Not your fancy radar words, which basically doesn't mean anything as it was I that listed the F-16 modes and how clutter is actually eliminated. I have yet to see you mention any technical detail about the radar in question beyond a couple of fancy movie related words. And, no, the high level operational details of that radar is not classified. So, please do enlighten me, which part does discriminate between an aircraft and a reflective plasma that has the same return charateristics as a metallic surface?!

I am still waiting!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

Yes, I did. But I prefer scientific and official documents, not an abused youtube video.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Evangium, thanks for posting. It is indeed one of those cases that seems to get a life of their own long after it happened, mainly due to a certain type of people with an agenda of their own (by all means of respect, as it is not necessarily monetary).

Cheers,
Badeskov

We all are.

Good information about radar, Badeskov, thanks for posting, I learn something new every day.


Skyeagle, quit dancing and respond please.

No worries Badeskov Personally I'm a little tired of hearing what a great case of ET reality Rendleshem is, despite the descrepencies between the eyewitnesses who were all apparently at the same scene...
Interesting how the debunkers like to crow about the lack of ground fog that night (when warning us about the errancy of Conde's claim), yet two eyewitness describe something 'fog-like'... Does this mean they're liars also?

Wait... I'm not sure if this is a typo or not, but are you saying the radar *doesnt* show radar-reflective objects in STT mode?



Yes, we understand that. What does that have to do with anything? Its irrelevant whether the radar is tracking one single object or multiple objects.



No, it will eliminate all other radar targets, because it is tracking one single one.



Why? What part of what you said prohibits it from being plasma?



No I dont, and I have yet to hear what...

Yes, I remember Rendlesham, but the advantage I have, is that of those who were there and knew what was goiong on.

Now, do you remember when you posted that photo that was PROVEN as not coming from the area of in question???
Is it any wonder then, why I posted that map and photo of that lighthouse to prove you wrong because you didn't do your homework properly as in this case?

I want to take this time to post this, which you posted.



Now, in the police report you posted, it says that that landing marks on the ground could have been made by an animal. Funny, but that animal much have used a precised R-U-L-E-R because the landing marks where the object was sighted, were E-V-E-N-L-Y spaced in a triangular pattern, and were not indicative of animal marks.

So you see, you listened to the wrong folks and not those civilians who were on video describing what military officials were, in effect, confirming the accounts of military personnel.

Being sloppy in doing your homework ain't gonna get it. Another thing, my comptriots who were there, confirmed the incidents took place as reported and look what you posted!!!

Why Sky, I'm guessing you didn't bother to do your homework...
Suffolk County Police... I wonder why they're the only Police Department in the whole of the UK with something related to Rendleshem on their website? But of course they don't 'know'...
Subversive Element... Could that be a pro UFO/anti-Powers that Be site? Maybe they 'know'?
You've done your homework, so you 'know'. Yet that's the best you can come up with to account for some serious discrepencies in eyewitness testimony to the same event?

!!!LOOK AT WHAT YOU POSTED!!!

But hey since you're talking 'homework', there's certainly enough 'evidence' to support that US Forces deployed in the UK and Europe collectively had a bit of a 'habit'... Much as I don't like the thought of making a cheap shot, but it seems that's another posibility that everyone on both sides of the fence has politely shuffled around.

And honestly, Aubrey, from everything you've posted, every insignificant scrap of evidence has not come from one who 'knows', but rather one who googles.
Maybe you should invest in a scanner and start uploading some crap from your 'war-chest' or whatever you call that collection of physical memories you should have aquired during your time in uniform...
Maybe then you might start convincing us that you 'know'. Until then, I'm just as satisfied as the rest that you don't 'know'...

BINGO!!!

You blew it again!!

The British M-0-D is mention and what did I post about the MoD?! It was found that the M-o-D got caught trying to cover-up the Rendlesham incidents and then claimed, that Colonel Halt's memo didn't exist and look what you posted!

I knew you didn't know that because of what you posted.

If you are not going to do your homework properly, why do it at all?! About those radar tapes, not only were the tape taken, but photos and videos of the landing site as well, but I guess you didn't know that either!

Second time's a charm, eh?

MOD, Ridpath, Tim Printy. Still doesn't prove S-Q-U-A-T.
And it still doesn't change that very valid point that if such a good RADAR contact existed, why did the TV programmers use misdirection by including the testimony of someone who wasn't even there on those nights?
So eager to stick it to someone who's allegedly pissing on your altar you missed that key point too...

It sure is, and now, it is lesson time for you again!

You posted the following:



Less than 10 hours ago, I posted where the MoD had tried to cover-up the Rendlesham incidents and claimed that Colonel Halt's memo never existed, and later, it was found that the MoD had the memo all along and withheld it from the public and look what you had posted!

Look at what the MoD had said about the radar sightings. Hmmmmmm. I found that no only were the radar tape taken, but videos and photos of the landing site taken during one of the incidents as well--there were multiple incidents over multiple nights.

You see, it helps when you have compatriots who were there to help determine that the MoD was in fact, trying to cover-up this incident, which was evident when they eventually released the memo they said, didn't exist, and look what you posted because you didn't know the rest of the story.

Simple answer:



Ok, jokes aside.

Skyeagle, can you explain this: after days spent searching this Menkello 6112 report, I've found sentence quoted above only. So it is classified or what? Have you seen this report 'alive', do you have a copy of this report?

Actually I didn't. Please show me where I did. Then again I did DELIBERATLEY post a link to IAN RIDPATH's site, knowing full well that you'd charge it like a bull at a gate, and put yourself in a position where you wouldn't even bother trying to put up a defence for those 4 witnesses who each describe something different.


And again had you done your 'homework' you'd see that was in the article at the source for the following Link...
Maybe you should go away, chillout and come back and see just how you've blindsided yourself?

To show that you don't do your homework right, do you remember this?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2160176

As I've said before, if you are not going to do your homework properly, why do it at all?!

The fact you posted articles from the MoD told me you don't really know what is going on in regards to the Rendlesham UFO incidents.

No, but it disproved the Air Force's own explanation about temperature inversion and the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents.

You seem to miss the point that I have mentioned many times in the past. My compatriots were there and they have also revealed to me what you can't find on the internet and that is how I know you are not doing your homework properly, because if you knew the rest of the story, you wouldn't have mentioned anything about the MoD in support of your case.

Apparently, you were unaware the MoD was behind the cover-up, which was originally revealed when the MoD finally released that Air Force document they claimed never existed, and it has been downhill from there.

I've said it before; you have to have the knowledge as to "when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em" and that is the advantage I have over you.

All you are doing is throwing your line into the Intenet Sea and hoping for a good catch, but I have already taken in a "good catch" because I knew where to throw my line.

Well, if you use scientific means in your argument, why are you STILL insisting that plasma could have been responsible for the UFO in the case files I presented?!

In fact, if the scientific means you used, then why are none of those UFO case files explained as the result of plasma by the scientific community? That is a very important clue of a few!

You see, you are not looking in the right places to determine what is right and what is wrong, otherwise, you would have already known why those case files were not explained away as plasma, and to this very day I might add.

Also, if you had checked it out, you would have also found why it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for plasma to have been responsible for any of the case files in question.

What a load of old bull.
Where do you think all those pro-ET/UFO sites (that you're so found of producing your 'evidence' from)get their information? Second hand, FOI and news reports. So by your logic, that means every single case you've posted off those sites is wrong/sloppy homework/g-man misdirection.
And then there's your argument of coverup due to the Forces' policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell'. Again you've just blown yourself out of the water, since by your reasoning, you shouldn't 'know', because everyone 'knew' not to talk.
And of course the governments lie about, 'illegally' destroy and alter documents. How can you be sure that every peice of paper you've got from them is legit?
Yep, knowledge is definitely knowing when to hold 'em and when to 'throw' 'em.
So how's that wet feeling of reality on your eyes?

I already have and apparently, he doesn't understand what he is posting simple because he insist that incidents such as this one, can be explained away as plasma, which proves my point beyond any doubt that he has no concept as to what is going on in the real world of aviation.

So, I would like for him to try and paint this incident as the result of plasma and if tries, then I have something for him that he seems to be unaware of.

Watch this video all the way to the end.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5IKmWDmHk&feature=related

LOL!!

I wasn't the person who posted that flawed photo, it was you! I wasn't the person who tried to use the MoD to support my case, it was you! Apparently, you were unaware of the story behind the MoD and that is why you solicited the MoD for your support without knowing the rest of the story in regards to the MoD's cover-up attempts on the Rendlesham UFO incidents and that why you posted what you did!

It helps to open the door to see what is on the other side instead of guessing behind a closed door.

LOL!! Lookdown capability has ALOT to do with it because it rejects that, which is not pertinent to the mission, including weather-related phenomena, (It is an ALL-WEATHER system) with clutter rejection, and that is apparent by the fact that the radar even rejects radar-reflective surfaces on land and sea and in STT mode, aircraft as well except the primary target, which you would have known if you understand the nature of today's air intercept radars.

All you are proving at this point is that you do not understand anything about such radar systems, especially the STT mode. Now, I mentioned "digital" in regards to that radar and that is just another clue that you are wrong.

You seem to think that just because plasma reflects radar waves, it is automatically picked on on that radar, but then again, the radar rejects radar reflective surfaces from buildings, ocean waves, and even other aircraft in STT mode, so here, you are showing me that you don't understand what goes on in the real world since the radar has many modes and sub-modes that reject atmospheric phenomena, but I guess you didn't know that given the fact you were unaware that it was an all-weather digital system as well.

In other words, it is a 'smart' system and you were unaware of that fact and if you knew anything about any of the case files I have presented, you would have found why it was impossible for plasma to have been responsible, which proves that you do not understand the nature of today's advanced air intercept radars.

As I said before, what you are doing is similar to copying Japanese language characters, but not knowing what those characters represent.

Lt. Col. Charles Halt audio recording of UFO chase through Rendlesham forest (transcript)




Summary: Charles Halt was the deputy base commander of Bentwaters RAF base during the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident of 1980. This is a transcript of his audio recording of the investigation and chase of a UFO through the forest

u want proof of life out there?
here u go
considering that the universe is apparently infinite or constantly expanding then there simply has to be life out there and intelligent life at that this is because there are infinite planets stars etc so there has to be planets capable of sparking and sustaining life infact if this infinite universe thing is true then life is garuanteed especially intelligent life [ although probly less intelligent and more simple life like single cells] also if infinite universe is true then theres a planet out there just like ours albeit with different levels of evolution ie more/less

badeskov,

Explained to us all, why it was impossible for plasma to have been responsible for that incident, and, there are several reasons. Do you know them?!

Hint of the Day

"Triangular-shaped craft, larger than a jumbo-jet (note: Boeing 747), that moved at speeds below 60 kilometres per hour (note: roughly 40 miles p.h.), with a slight whirring sound and not the classic reaction-motor noise - cannot be confused with laser projections or holograms."

General-Major Wilfried De Brouwer, former Adjunct-Chief of the Belgian Air Force


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question now arises; was that gigantic triangular-shaped object ours?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Statement from then, Colonel W.J.L. De Brouwer:

"We measured some exceptional accelerations which cannot be related to conventional aircraft . . . that is clear. . . . The data on all this performances which were registered during the lock-ons on the radar, was totally outside of the normal performance envelope of any airplane."

"Even though the (keyword) craft exceeded the speed of sound, remarkably, there was no sonic boom on the ground."

In other words, thousands of eyewitness accounts described a structured triangular-shaped craft, not plasma, but what did the lead F-16 pilot say?