I am still laughing over that after what my compatriots told me!

It seems that anyone can make up a false story and the skeptics jumped right onto a sinking boat, just as they had done when a guy by the name of Kevin Corte said that his battered police car was responsible for the Rendlesham incidents, and the skeptics then came in droves and jumped right on that boat.

After Mr. Corte admitted that he wasn't responsible for the Rendlesham incidents after all, those unfortunate skeptics soon found themselves drowning in the sea of reality.

The fact that you posted that website as a means of support told me right there that you did not do any research whatsoever, into the Rendlesham UFO incidents.

After reading this, you should have suspected that something wasn't right with that explanation.



Having a few drinks and going flying on a Christman holiday without permission from either the base commander nor air traffic controllers, and breaking regulations against flying an aircraft within 8 hours of drinking alcohol.

It is evident that you have never served in the military.

Read my post above!

Well arn't you just all knowing lol. I do know quite a bit about it. The strobing light in the forest with people using night vision scopes thinking they seeing a ufo when they are really seeing the lighthouse through the forest? Oh then it was during holiday break where the only people there were the greens. They overreacted and considering if it really was a ufo, there wasn't much of a reaction towards it other than fanatics as yourself blowing it up to be something that it wasn't. Oh your physical evidence of burrow holes from the bunnies, unless our alien friends like carrots and twitch their noses, I think our vegatable gardens will be safe! Oh then the clincher. No photos and video only eye-witness evidence. School you about eyewitnesses. In the search for evidence the worst "exhibit" you can use as a crutch is eyewitness. Then you're going to say that those who remained silent that were on the base at that time are somehow scared into not talking or part of some interstellar conspiracy, how about this? They were pretty embarassed that they overreacted on something and let their imaginations get the better of them. Do I know every detail of this case? no. But I know enough that it is so riddled with holes that it looks like swiss cheese.

hence is why they said that the prank got out of hand. Obviously you jump at the extreme without a leg to stand on than the reality. It kind of proves my point. A prank goes out of hand, at holiday time on base with not much brass around. Don't you think that those involved wouldn't want that to get out and be pretty embarrased about it? And no I didn't serve in the military, but I guess that makes me disqualified to sharing the truth.

Apparently, I was already aware of this, but unfortunately, you were not.

Read my post above, and review the official Air Force memo on the Rendlesham UFO incidents.




The Air Force is talking about multiple UFOs in the sky, and in the forest, and that one UFO is shining a light down on them. To further add, physical evidence were noted on the ground, and on the trees. Samples were also taken and radiation readings were found to be above normal at the landing site.

so let me get this straight. That some dude does a prank at the same time of your personal holy grail of ufo's and they arn't connected at all? nuff said.

That is right!

First of all, military police do not drive around in battered police cars that are practically brand new. If something is wrong, they take them directly to the motorpool to get fixed. That was clue number one that he was lying, and Mr. Conde's admission was clue number 2.

Clue number 3, is the fact that the Rendlesham UFO incident took place over mulitiple nights, not one, and civilians in the local area also confirmed the accounts of the military of the UFO in the forest and multiple UFOs in the sky during video inteviews.

Ok well now its for the Grand Slam. Got you on the ropes and battered and bruised lol. You probably won't look at this site and its way too much to cut and snip but contains all the truth and many upon many inconsistancies upon this holy grail of ufo zelots. I put it here so people can know the real truth and not the fantistic claims made. But feel free to check it out if you dare, but you already made your mind up and are sold on a myth so I highly doubt it will change your opinions. Once again chalk one up for the truth.


http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1b.htm

Sometimes, they go beyond being able to just be quiet when they overreact and hope nobody remembers how foolishly they acted. Some spend the rest of their lives trying to prove they aren't failures for making such wild-eyed, innaccurate claims and suffereing the aftermath that can do to a career, particularly the career of a military officer. If they can just get that next person to believe, and failing that, they can belittle their enemies until they rebuid the fortress they hide in. Some will do anything to preserve the identities they've built and wrapped themselves up in for protection, no matter how defiant of logic and reason they have to be.

Even people knowingly caught in little lies will bend their perceptions of reality beyond breaking, sometimes for no other reason than to protect their own pride from being damaged. They just can't face reality, grow from the experience, then move on.

Sorry, Sky, if that hits a little close to home.

LOL!!!

Don't you do any research at all!! The Rendlesham UFO incidents remain unexplained to this very day and look what you posted!

It is apparent in the Air Force document, that the UFOs, which were moving all over the sky, were not stars! Especially the UFO in the forest!

Not long ago, a skeptic claimed that the multiple UFOs were Jupiter, which was debunked successfully, and then the skeptics said that a Russian satellite was responsible, but it the Russian satellite theory was debunked, so the skeptics claimed that a lighthouse was responsible, which was debunked by the fact the lighthouse can't be seen from the base, and then the skeptics claimed that a police car was responsible, but Kevin Conde admitted that was false, so now, the skeptics are claiming that a helicopter and a Apollo module were responsible, but the doesn't jive with military and civilian witnesses accounts of the incidents taking place over multiple nights nor what is contained within the official Air Force report.

Seems that you need to learn how do do proper research because it is clearly apparent that you have no idea what the Rendlesham UFO incidents are all about, and if you had checked it out, you would have found that the British MoD was withholding the Air Force memo and even claiming that it didn't exist.

Eventually, thanks to some hard-working folks, the British MoD finally admitted to the reality of the Air Force's memo, which is also known as the "Halt memo."

Yeap your right I just look at something logical and look at the obvious evidence at hand, and make a rational conclusion from that. Where you and the few others like to ignore facts, ignore truth, jump to the impossibly most complex, distorted and wildly obtuse theroies. And its quite obvious you didn't read the site. But hey when you can't compete, spew rhetoric.

You are providing a measure of comedy relief because you are proving that you have no idea of what the Rendlesham UFO incidents are all about and that can be ascertained by the fact you are looking for support in all the wrong places.

thats your arguement? Come on strawman. You can do better than that. Ian Ridpath at http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1b.htm does all the grunt work and thoroughly debunks the who thing to such a degree that its absolutly embarrassing for the rabid zelots to even argue upon? Well If I got owned like that, then I'd probably make a same comment of noncomment. Good thing I got it right this time hehe.

I know what i am talking about because my compatriots were stationed there during the UFO incidents, so I got the facts from those who have firsthand knowledge of what went on, and some of what was revealed cannot be found on the internet.

LOL!!

Not only have my compatriots debunked those sites you posted, it seems that you were also unaware that the military made audio tapes during their trek into the forest, which proved that the link you posted is a source of bad information.

BTW, weren't you even aware that the military made the audio tape of the Rendlesham incident, which automatically debunks your link? I guess not!!

LOL! Sky, you take the cake. Reading your posts is like watching my dog chase her tail. Nothing productive is getting done, but there sure is a lot of commotion. In the end, her tail is still attached, no matter how hard she tries. But she always keeps trying! LOL!

This text from the link Tommyo provided nails down exactly what your position evidently is (well, better evidence than we have for UFOs + ET)



Good score, Tommyo, but you're arguing with someone who's identity is intimately bound by necessity to his quest. What Rendlesham is all about is adding to a house of cards to perpetuate a fantasy that promises safety.

oh the good ole' skyeagle 3rd hand information with no facts to back it up. Couldn't expect any more from ya. Sure I'll take your word over all the evidence piled against your arguement any day. So I'm going with one of these three options. One you really don't have "compatriots" that were stationed there. Second they embellished or lied to you about said event to either have a story, or CYA (cover your ass) or three you wern't in the military. Im not going with 3 because you do seem to have a good sense of areonautics and military.

And then my favorite is that you have information that is not on the internet, that only you know and somehow that makes it all believable? How can that possibly apply to anything if it can not be substantiated or acredited as reliable/truth?

Firsthand information from those who were there. What you didn't know.

I knew about the tape and heard it. So now your arguement sits upon an audio tape? That is so weak that it doesn't need to be debunked. And guess what, it sounds like A. they are talking about a lighthouse and B. That they are working off their own fear/adreniline. I noticed a lot of similarities between this tape and the audio of Blair Witch Project. Oh, just so you know, that movie was not real
But for arguement sake I'll let you have the tape. Good luck with that! lol

I just did!!

I don't think so!!

Lol yes I have. I didn't think that you'd stoop to a audio tape as proof of aliens on Earth. But that was my fault thinking that you had common sense when trying to argue on a platform of proof. Let me go ask my magic 8 ball what I should say next.

The words you used are favored by frauds the world over. Where are the verifiable, unbiased reports of your sighting? If they are unavailable for public viewing, why have you violated your oath?

If you had done so, you wouldn't have linked that bad website. If you had truly done so, you would have found that the UFOs in the sky were moving in the classiic UFO fashion, which common sense would tell you, they were not stars.

Look at the explanations of the skeptics here. They can't even agree on amongst themselves on what happened.

I would violate my oath only if I told you the rest of the story!

Skeptics claim that the lighthouse is responsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents. Fotunately for one skeptic, he went to the area and found for himself that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base, and now, he is a former lighthouse supporter.

Why the lighthouse can't be seen from the base.






http://www.roswellproof.com/Rendlesham_pictorial.html

That can be picked up with a nite scope which they were using to see the object. Nice try. I've worked with infrared camaras and know all about light flare ups, which can be quite weird when observed, especially when dealing with military grade equiptment and a powerful light source, eg. a light house.

You are saying that you judge the site as a bad website because they didn't bother with the lowest form of evidence, which was a tape recording, but rather going up to the top of your claims and one by one destroying them? Such a sad arguement you hold to.

Such as? "Not many people know about the backshield."

Well, this looks like the internet to me. Could be wrong, it could be an ETV.

http://www.roswellproof.com/Rendlesham_pictorial.html



Hardly secret things known only to you.

You sure love to post those old pictures and documents Sky. But tell me, isnt there any new and better "evidence" you can show us? Im afraid the old stuff just isnt good enough for the skepics, or the scientific community. Sure, people all over the world believe that ET is here buzzing our airspace and abducting hundreds of thousands of people every year. What Im after is the evidence, not peoples beliefs.

Nice try, but it doesn't fly.

A skeptic went there to see for himself that there was no way the lighthouse could been seen from the base, and my compatriots concur.

Because it is false evidence. Can't make it any simpler than that!

Apparently, the author is not concerned with military procedures involving Air Force aircraft and the number of steps that have to be taken before any aircraft can become airborned, which proves that the link you posted is a laughable website at best.

The military doesn't take kindly to the unauthorized use of their equipment, nor aircrews that drink within the 8-hour time limit before each flight, which would bust any aircrew and destroy their careers.

Just thought that you would like to know that, since you are not aware of the way the military does things in the real world.

Not the lighthouse, it isn't.



There are things that were not reported, nor contained in the "Halt memo." I am predicting that eventually, people will know the rest of the story.

Thanks! Now, you know what another skeptic had found out when he visited the area, and that is, the lighthouse could not be seen from the base.



You bring up the scientific community but just the other day, I posted some material taken from the scientific Colorado Study where the Lakenhealth UFO incident, which is located very near the Rendlesham area, pertain to a UFO as "possible genuine." In fact, the Colorado Study confirmed that the UFO outmaneuvered the intercepting aircraft, and the airspeeds of that UFO in that case exceeded 4000 mph, which simply means the UFO was not an aircraft nor the result of some natural phenomenon, known, or unknown.



Now, coming from the Colorado Study whose leader is highly bias against UFOs, that is saying quite a lot, to say the least!

So government documents, ones that are officially released from the governments of England and United States, is not good enough for you?

Its very obvious that you didn't read anything on the site since you keep spewing your rhetoric out. Keep on beating a dead horse, won't get you anywhere.



Let me know when the shuttle lands bud. Its is quiet laughable when you take an extreme stance with no proof or evidence, and then tell me about the real world? I sincerly doubt you know anything about the real world.

A study. Go see the previous posts since you have selective memory syndrome. A study doesn't constitute proof, at best they can create a hypothesis, and maybe if you are really lucky a theroy. But study means just that, its not evidence, its some people getting together talking about something and throwing everything against a wall and sees what sticks.

Aye. A study can be described as "observations that evaluate previous observations." To go a step further than what you stated, a study can only provide a hypothesis or theory that regards the observations included in the study, and can lay no valid claims against the subject of the studied observations (convoluted, I know.) The study itself is at least one step removed from the original observations. The best that can be said is that the study is an abstraction of the original observations. You can even back up another step to something called a "metastudy," a study of studies, which is even more abstract and has even less to say about the original observations. They are still useful, though, and can find errors in the base studies that can lead to finding errors in the original observations. This is a well-proven method for enabling auto-correction used in the medical sciences, particularly pharmacology.

A "study" and "possible genuine" doesnt come close to scientific hard evidence...What will it take for you to understand this!!!!! The pictures, testimonys and documents you have posted so far dont fly without a god doze of faith. We....Hrm...

Lets try that again.. I need real evidence.

[quote name='Tommyo' date='Feb 19 2008, 04:40 PM' post='2158977']
So government documents, ones that are officially released from the governments of England and United States, is not good enough for you?[;/quote]

Remember, the British MoD withheld the "Halt Memo" and even claimed that it didn't even exist, but now, we found that the document did indeed, exist, and that it spoke of UFOs flying in the sky and one within the forest and noted physical evidence at the landing site.

It wasn't that long ago that I said that you have to have the knowledge to know "when to hold 'me, and when to throw 'em."

Must be the other 'Orford Ness', then....

Considering that the U.S Air Force was also affected and confirmed the UFO as well, (it flew just beneath an Air Force C-47), and the fact that particular incident remains unexplained to this very day, is a clear example that the UFO involved in that incident did not have earthly origins, and the message contained within the Colorado Study's report is just the icing-on-the-cake when you take the mindset of its leader into consideration.

Must be something else because the lighthouse is 6 miles from the base. Look at the map and see what sits between the base and the lighthouse.

Is it any wonder then, as to why a former lighthouse supporter is a former lighthouse supporter after visiting the area?

When are you going to get it through your head! It was not the light house, that theory was "de-bunked" a long time ago!



Tape recording is not the lowest form of evidence :/ And stars, that was another great explanation lol. Stars that moves, decend, go up, and shine a bean towards the ground. Yeah, i have looked up at the stars and seen the same thing, not!!!!!!

Some of these so called "scientists" are just a joke, looking for a quick explanation, and people like you will believe anything they say, even if it is rather stupid. Im sorry, but they were not stars!

Hmmm, perhaps he should have brought along some hi-powered binoculers or a camera with a decent zoom lens then...
Since this object might be a little tricky (not impossible) to see with the naked eye.

again basing your entire arguement on a audio tape. Inadmissable in any court of law as condeming evidence. Barely meets the circumstancial evidence criteria. I swear if you hear or read the tape you can hear the sounds of benny hill music playing in the background as these guys are going around chasing a lighthouse becon lol.

Keep on trucking!

jesus. if youre saying the military is getting scared of a mother f****** lighthouse? then im afraid. afraid for all of us. that these are the people they have protecting their country. where they cant even tell the difference here between a light that moves through the woods, then takes off into the sky, or a stationary lighthouse, 6 miles away from them, which has a back sheild apprently, blocking the light from their direction. just sad. its almost like north america.
besides, im preeeetty sure theyd know if it was a lighthouse, because they would have Seen it Numerous times before when on duty. i doubt one day they got super freaked out, by somethnig they could apparently see All the Time. Everyday! thats a pretty lame excuse for what they saw. whoever came up with it.
besides, what about the burn makes the alledgedy found? or the impressions in the ground they found the next day from where the object was seen? damn. thats one hell of a lighthouse.
but keep on trucking! maybe youll come up with a better explanation than the lighthouse one people came up with. remember, Im rooting for ya

Physical evidence of aliens...to you! Not to me. Those links you posted earlier were not even close to any way shape or form of scientific proof of ET.

SKY. If you believe that ET is here, do you also believe that they are abducting people and cutting up livestock....and what kinds of aliens do you think they are...We have all heard of The greys, Nordics and Reptillions??

Or do you only believe that they are here doing an airshow for us..!!??

And how do you know they arent humans from the future, or the past, or from another dimention, or ghosts, or something we havent thought of yet??

And what about DMT!!! Youv heard of DMT right??

ummm...dont think he mentioned anything in that quote about it being aliens. kinda put words in his mouth.
in my opinion, i believe he was saying, they found Physical Evidence that something had landed there. impressions in the ground, burn marks and what not.
however, i may be wrong though.