Why is it a clueless de-bunkers leaves these forums, and then another one pops up!!!! lol You seem like the type of person who will believe anything that de-bunkers say, and thats a shame! Even though it has been proved beyond any doubt that the light house had nothing to do with the case, you still refuse to except that, just because it came from a de-bunkers mouth. You even bring up the stars theory, which is just as bad as the lighthouse. I bet you even believed the "POLICE CAR PRANK" until that was de-bunked too.

Or three bunny holes! Those Rascally rabbits!

Please explain how they were bunny holes?

Sad little man. So many reports of it being a prank and hoax with you ignoring such statments and then jumping to the belief it was aliens out of speculation. But lets go back to basics, you guys are making an extraordinary claim, where is the extraordinary proof? Please don't say an audio tape because I don't think anyone but you is going to accept that as proof.

does mentally r******ed elmer fudd know the difference between a rabbit Hole, and in three Impressions/Indents in the ground?

yeap fudd does but obviously not the ufo nuts.

oooh, nice try there. the answer we were looking for was 'no'. but thx for coming out appreciate it. just next time...maybe read?
cause apparently elmer cant tell whats a hole, and whats an a cirular indent in the ground. or what burn marks are.

Please tell when i said it was aliens, i dare you!!!



LOL ok. I can see you not lasting long on this forum.



What extraordinary claim am i making? Because i dont agree with the explanations, that does not mean i believe it to be ET!!!

Again, you prove you dont know what you are talking about. Your just another de-bunker who comes on this forum every so often, and once people find out that they dont know anything, they quickly go.

I asked you to explain how they were bunny holes, and you ignore that question, because you cant answer it. I tell you what, i will give you some time, so that you can start looking on de-bunking sites to get your "opinion"

Sad little man lol

Uh because they are bunny holes? Im not claiming that its some space craft that landed in the middle of England for a siesta. I've seen pictures of the casts made of it, and they sure look like bunny burrows. See this link for the true facts. Notice that they use two different measuring systems on the diagram and nowhere ever has there been burn marks, and oh wait a scuff mark on a tree that could of been made by any animal in the vacinity. I'm guessing elk might be our flying saucers occupants, coming down to scratch a tree and be on their way. But seriously this is your leg to stand on? Very weak. And don't worry, I am not going anywhere as long as people are passing falsehoods and outragous claims with no backup of actual proof. I find great comic relief how gullible the human race can be at times and watching you all squirm under the thumb of truth is outright hillarious.


Here is some of your evidence that you say that I shouldn't use because I didn't write it, but Sky sure can cut and paste his way to fantasy land.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham5.htm

My God! this bloke is funny. Like how he tried to say that some of the objects where stars, even to the point where the stars could show what would look like a beam come from it. That is such a joke, and an insult to these witnesess. I would like to see what other crap he has said about other cases, should be worth a laugh. I hate people like this because no matter what, they will find an explanation, just so it does not say unsolved, its so sad.

Thats not evidence. That is some bloke saying what he thought they saw in the sky. Anyone who believes this junk, well, i feel sorry for them!

So what, a UFO doesnt mean Aliens.

And Im seing a trend here Sky....Whenever the military supports your claim you bring them in...When they dont, you are talking cover-up.

Yep, that military (Air Force in particular) are a bad ol' bunch. Depending on which 'compelling exhibit' you read, they're the masters of discrediting, misdirection and just general sneaky underhandedness. With all the breadcrumbs out there (that he's left concerning who he is), I'm honestly surprised that Sky hasn't had to front his supervisor to be given his marching orders.

Apparently, you didn't do what I aske you to do, and that is, look at the map.

The reason why I can't see the airport beacon from an airbase, which is only 7 miles from my house, is the same reason why the lighthouse can't be seen through the Rendlesham forest; obstacles!

Seems you've missed my post where I'd said that a former lighthouse supporter is a former lighthouse supporter because he went to the Rendlesham area and found for himself that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base.

Apparenlty, the UFO believers it seems, are that the folks have the knowledge to know what is going on.

After all, the skeptics are the folks who are not doing their homework and the proof lies in the fact that they still support a lighthouse theory as reponsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents, even though the lighthouse can't be seen from the base nor does it explained the UFOs in parts of the sky that were witnessed by miliitary personnel on the base and civilians outside the base on multiple nights. BTW, how long has the lighthouse been in operation before the Rendlesham UFO incidents took place?

I even provided a map to make my point, but apparently, and with all due respect, there are skeptics who can't read a map.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the lighthouse was not reponsible for the UFO in the forest nor the UFOs in the sky over multiple nights! All it takes is just some old-fashioned common sense.

Radioactive and evenly spaced "bunny holes?"

I guess those bunnies were using precision measuring devices to dig their shallow depressions, not holes. Don't you bother to do any research???

I guess not, so now, it's lesson time!!!



So you see, nothing was said about "bunny holes" in the memo. It is clear that the more you post, the more it becomes evident that you haven't a clue as to what is going on.

I'd like a new car, but that's not happining

Common sense should have told him that stars do not move across the sky as those UFOs, which was a clue that he somehow had missed on purpose.

Question for you Hazzard! Did we have flying saucers in 1956 capable of hypersonic flight and not leave behind sonic booms? Please answer the question.



It should have been evident from my previous post when I stated that "knowlege" will let you know "when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em." Without that knowledge, you will be left in the dark.

Either reveal it, or in this case where you can't, then you shouldn't mention it. It's like saying I know something you don't, and in the end totally pointless and makes other people think you don't have any real information.

On another note while searching on Rendlesham debunking information I stumbled across this essay by Hastings on Jacobs account of the Big Sur ICBM incident in 1964. An excellent article that is depressingly rare in the UFO field.

http://www.cufos.org/hastings.pdf

Would that be a Topographical map or a street directory map? 'Cause from all the photos I've seen of that area, it looks like there's a bit of what the groundpounders call dead ground going on over that 6 miles. And you can make out the lighthouse, if you're given a reference point. As you can see from the picture (taken from the search area) the light shield doesn't obscure the light from view.
Which is something your supposed skeptic convert mentions as well. From your link, it really doesn't sound like that guy's about to fall to his knees and cry "Praise sweet alien Jesus, I seen da Light!"

And why is it that you can recognise a flying saucer in a grainy, blurry photo, yet you can't believe that photo shows the top of the Orford Ness Light House?

And again to get away from the Rendlesham Incident, this is the first I have seen of this incident, and is certainly a step in the right direction so far.

The footage from Kumburgaz in Turkey:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mrfGiv0X8ns

Some explanation of it by a partial UFO organisation:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYr4ERffPEg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4jyiPB5Ih3M

And finally the reason why I found it worth posting in this thread:

http://www.siriusufo.org/tr/?fx=sayfa_ac&a...itak_report.asp

Basically TUBITAK” The Science and Technology Research Board of Turkey’s (a Scientific Institution owned by the state that is highly reliable and influential) verified that the footage was real, although due to the nature of the footage they cannot categorically state that the craft was in fact ET, just that the footage was untampered with and the object in it was real, whether it was an incredible hoax or not.

Its a video of what? Its shot so far away and bad quality that it could a million things mundane but lets jump to the incredible and says its a flying saucer. Was it even flying or on the ground or was it just headlights of a car or what? being pitch black with no referance points it makes it impossible to tell size or any over variables. Once again something thrown out there and is not even close to anything even close to substancial evidence. Ufologists seem to throw as much sh** against the wall and seeing what sticks. So far it seems that the wall is made of Teflon.

P.S. Thanks for putting something new on the thread, Skyeagle and his obsessive compulsive disorder on Rendlesham was getting boring. Especially when someone doesn't look at facts and makes fiction when things don't go his way.

Just to prove Skyeagle a liar here is some pictures of Rendlesham lighthouse at night, in the forest that he swears can't be seen. OPPS!

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

Can't be true but there it is buddy lol.

If you go back in time the same thing happened at that base in 1956. Why doesn't someone compare the two??

Oops is right!! On your part!

Since the lighthouse has a backshield between the lighting unit in the lighthouse and the base, then apparently, that photo with the light shown, couldn't have been taken from the base.

So you see why I said you need to do your homework???

Time for another lesson!!

Here is the photo you are speaking of.



The forest in the photo is only about 200 feet wide at the most.

But, note in the map, that the forest between the East Gate and the lighthouse is at least, one mile wide.



Which simply proves that photo wasn't taken from the East Gate.

To underline my point once again, the lighthouse has a backshield that sits between the lighting unit within the lighthouse and the East Gate, as presented in this photo.



Which proves that the light you see in the photo you posted a link to, couldn't have been taken from the East Gate because the backshield and the one mile wide forest would have made it impossible for any light to be seen from the East Gate.

It is amazing that you let everyone know, that you don't know, what you needed to know.

The 1956 Lakenheath and 1980 Rendlesham UFO incidents were basically in the same general area.

Well I know that you know that I know you know that you know nothing! hehe

How did you determine the size of the forest? Oh and these guys on your tape are trapsing through your forest chaing the lighthouse becon that is A. In the picture clearly, and B. they were there according to your own admissions. Don't get all high and mighty thinking that you know it all when clearly you jumble your "facts" so well to only serve your own delusions, other than facing reality that you cowtow to the ufo religion full of lies and deseptions. Obviously the backshield doesn't block all the light according to the picture. Other than your beholdant tape evidence that you think is somehow the holy grail of evidence, which previously pointed out is so weak that noone really ever takes it seriously; that is anyone with a perception of what can be percieved as evidence, and the statements made by various people, which most have been rebuked by admittance of hoaxers and others recanting their statements, the data of the diagram which is classicly done with metric, inches and then the 1-2 which we have to assume is inches, the radioactive readings of a geiger counter that was well within range of normal background readings, oh and a scratched tree that could of been from just about anything, but lets go ahead and assume it was something from another world landing here. Then the russian satelitte that crashes at that same time in that same vecinity of England, but lets ignore that too because that doesn't comply to your weak theroy. AND at that time too was a meteor shower occuring at that time too. Anything else I'm forgettig? "Oh any lack of true evidence other than a crackpot guardsman who's statements has been shown to have many upon many distortions, falsehoods and in my opinion outright lies just to stir a pot for people like you to get some attention out of nothing. Nice schooling I guess, I just take the truth and follow it to its conclusion. Where you take the truth, dismiss it outright, follow a crackpot and his theroys, spend your time and energy ferverantly defending something that just plainly is not real. I'm sure you'll cut and paste your way into a fantasy world with your reply with half-truths, and other pictures of the lighthouse, or some other weak defense, but we all know there isn't a leg to stand on in this case, and it is only unexplained to you, and maybe a few nutcases that have no grounding in reality. Lets get some real proof here, something substancial and critical. Back up your extraordinary claims, instead of using weak observances, lets try to crack the pot and use something that can be backed up with science. I know you really can't do such a thing, because at this time it doesn't exist, but who knows one day maybe they'll abduct you and probe you and let you keep the probe as a momento! lol

I think you forgot the "misleading statement" from the Suffolk Constabulary regarding what the officers at the scene saw. Link

Yes indeed.


It looked cool, http://youtube.com/watch?v=mrfGiv0X8ns but like you said, it could have been anything. This is the new stuff I was after when starting this thread....

Try to focus Sky...You said -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. Then I said that that a UFO doesnt mean Aliens...What makes you so sure that the old report of a saucers back in 1956 "capable of hypersonic flight and not leave behind sonic booms" really happend?? Just qurious.



That is your answer!!!?????

to my

PLEASE EVERYONE - STOP POSTING THOSE BIG*** PICTURES - A LINK WILL DO FINE.

The "Halt Memo."





So here is where Colonel Halt describes the object within the Rendlesham forest, as "metallic in appearance and triangular in shape." To some skeptics, that sounds like at lighthouse 6 miles away, even though military personnel were roaming around in the forest next to the base. Clue #1.



To some, sounds like depressions just outside the base, were left by a lighthouse 6 miles away.



Yes, indeed, flying lighthouse are normal in the Rendlesham area to some skeptics.

when all else fails just regurgitate the same crap that has previously been shreaded by truth. But I expect nothing less from you.

You can find documents relating to that incident, and there were interviews with one of the aircrew, and the Air Force confirmed the incident as well. That UFO incident impressed members of the scientific Colorado Study a great deal.

The Lakenheath UFO case is one of the best in history. It is even listed in the COMETA Report and Project Blue Book.

QUOTE

http://lakenheath.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/IR-2-56.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc629.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/radarcases.htm

http://lakenheath.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/Hynekmemo.htm

http://ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56mcd.htm

http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometamain.html

http://www.ufocasebook.com/cometa4.html

Whats your problem!!! Do you get a kick out of insulting people all the time?

Read the case, and what the witnesess saw. If you really thnik what they saw was a lighthouse ( lol ) or stars, well, what can i asy.

Isn't it about time to close this one up?

LOL!!!

That is an official Air Force document, you know!

It amazes me that some people believing everything that a skeptic will say about a case, no matter how stupid it is. If these "skeptics" who investigated the rendleshem case, actually listened to the witnesess, they should know that the lighthouse, stars, had nothing to do with the case, but no, they just cant leave something unexplained, they have to put forward stupid explanations, that really insult this militery witnesess, who. by the way could see the lighthouse while they were veiwing these ufos.

John Burroughs - Airmen first class at time - present on first night
"There is no way that many people were fooled by that lighthouse...There is just no way that we were fooled, something actually went on on out there."

Jim Penniston - Staff Sergeant at time - present on first night
[Arguing with Vince Thurkettle] "You know, we've worked out here for months. We know where the lighthouse is, it's just so ridiculous to bring that up."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

Edward Cabansag - Airman at time - present on first night
"It [the UFO] was to the right of the lighthouse" "... It wasn't the lighthouse."

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night
"I knew where the lighthouse was. This thing was not it. I saw the lighthouse as well but I never mentioned it [on the tape]. Why should I? Everybody present knew what that was!"

"A lighthouse doesn’t move through the forest; the lighthouse doesn’t go up and down, it doesn’t explode, doesn’t change shape, size - doesn’t send down beams of light from the sky”.

"I don't want to talk to people that tell me I was looking at the lighthouse... I could see the lighthouse... I knew where the lighthouse was. That's ludicrous."

"They [the sceptics] weren't there that night, I certainly wish some of them had been - they might have had a different opinion of things. But they're entitled to their opinion, they certainly are. I know what happened. I was there."

Steve La Plume - Airmen first class at time - present on second or third night
"I mean, come on here, this is not rocket science. I saw something, Busty [Adrian Bustinza] saw something, [Larry] Warren saw something.
Everyone there saw something. Perhaps on different nights, perhaps with a different perspective but we did not see a light house and mistake it for a bloody UFO.

[...] I am personally offended by the fact that anyone can even think that we are so stupid as to believe what we saw was a dammed light house[...]"

Larry Warren - A1C - present on second or third night
"The British press always brings up astronomer Ian Ridpath's insane lighthouse theory as the cause of the UFO incidents. USAF security police are highly trained people, and I'm sure all Bentwaters veterans must find Ridpath's ramblings insulting in the extreme".

Gregory Battram - A1C at time - present on second/third night
"I just wish I knew why those things landed and what they wanted - isn't that the most important question? No lighthouses and theories from people who don't have a clue..."

Other relevant quotes

Vince Thurkettle - forester at time - first to suggest the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "they [the sceptics] take a cluster of facts and only pick up on those that suit the situation"

Even the lighthouse keeper does not subscribe to the lighthouse theory.
He spoke to Georgina Bruni, "... some time the sceptics have been pestering me in an attempt to get to support their theory. I cannot do it. I know what my lighthouse looked like from the forest. I have seen it in all weathers. It just could not do what those airmen and local people describe the UFO as doing..."

It's worse than that. He "regurgitated previously regurgitated crap." The Halt memo is at best a second hand retelling of other reports, as evidenced by the words "saw" and "was seen." More likely, it's a retelling of a retelling of a retelling, making it a third hand account. Also, there is excellent detailed information in the http://www.ianridpath.com links you sent earlier that blow apart the whole claim of abnormal radiation readings.

One would have to make astoundingly unmindful speculative leaps based on earlier wild speculations to come up with the conclusion that this was anything other than mundane mistaken identification.

Apparently, that is not correct, since his audio tape and his many interviews confirmed what he wrote in his memo.

Are there any skeptics willing to do any homework???

How the hell can this be mistaken identification, it begs belief they some people cant think for themselves on here, and would rather believe what some dodgy skeptic has said about the case.

They knew where the light house was, they could see it, and knew it was not the lighthouse that they were seeing, but some people just disregard this. The objects, did not act like a light house, considering the lighthouse would have been just a small dot of light on the horizon, its just not logical!

The map!

I am tired of OptimisticSkeptic long downward path into name calling...

The Lighthouse is NOT an issue here, and for the umpteenth time post this:



Link to Full Account

So... if you can find sufficient counter arguments then please present them, resorting to "name-Calling" is highly indicative that you you have no such SUBSTANTIATED evidence. Yes, I did shout that, I want to see SUBSTANTIATION from you instead of insults...

Skyeagle is entitled to his belief no matter how silly it can seem to others. Also I agree with morrison,that name calling is not how we do this. The people that break the forum rules should be warned and then banned. This thread should not be closed just because some people cant play nice.

I have looked at your posts Sky,but your "evidence" falls short of anything even close to scientific proof. Without that faith and belief of yours I guess I wont get it...Untill the evidence gets ALOT BETTER.

the one at night time with the lighthouse clearly seen in it playing around arn't we?

So where do the attending police officers fit in then. I see they've been left out by everyone. Link

Look at my past track record where eventually, latter scientific investigations validated my claims.

Apparently, you were unable to see the fact that according to the map, there was no way the lighthouse could be seen from the East Gate of the base and that the photo you presented, was not taken from the East Gate of the base, and the map said it all, and the amazing thing about it all is, it was all very obvious!