The security police fit in quite nicely!

After all, the "Halt Memo" and interviews of those involved, had pretty-much summed it up, and that in regards to civilians who were also interview on video. Now, my compatriots confirmed what others have said as well.

It should have been obvious that the lighthouse was not an issue since base personnel were already aware of the lighthouse and its location. After all, how long has that lighthouse been there before the Rendlesham incidents took place?

It wasn't like the lighthouse went into operation the day before the incidents! Besides, there were numerous government vehicles, including staff cars and other equipment around the site, and lighting units were placed into certain positions so that no one could see what was going on in the forest from a nearby road, and a lot a activity was going on in the forest.

Security police? I think you'd better clarify or click the link I provided, before someone accuses you of not doing your homework.

The question should be: Were police units involved in the first place?

http://www.scifi.com/rendlesham/

Hmmm... Namecalling? Interesting. Don't recall doing that, or even coming close to it. I've questioned sky's motives, but that's about as far as I've gone.

Claimed that the case is resolved? Hmmm... I didn't do that either. Sky has claimed precisely that, though. To paraphrase sky, "ET buzzed the woods that night in his spacemobile. There is no other possible explanation." The truth is, other explanations that satisfy all of the observations have been made. There are yet other explanations that could be made. To steadfastly reject alternate explanations with such a closed mind belies some ulterior motive at best, or some imbalance at worst. Sky has yet to reveal the motivation that may rationalize the apparently irrational stance he has chosen.

He seems like a nice guy, and I would probably very much enjoy his company in real life. That would be the makings of some very interesting, if spirited, conversation.

Please, consider the meaning of the word "substantiate" - "to make concrete," and compare that to "speculate" - "to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds."

Counter arguments abound, and have been posted. They are summarily rejected because they don't support the singular, sensational, predetermined conclusion.

as i posted a longer one on like page 27 or something, im still baffled that people have come to the conclusion that the F'n military got freaked out by a mother F'n lighthouse, 6 miles away, that was an apparent back sheild, blocking that light. And the fact that they would be seeing this bloody light ALL the Damn time. then, suddenly, one day, OMG! WTF is that Sh**!??! lets check it out.
and then it Takes off into the sky. impressions are found on the ground, burn marks, and levels of radiation.
doesnt quite make sense. i would have expected Alot more from skeptics, not this lame conclusion. where theyre really reaching for something. anything really.

Well you said that it can't be seen from the area because of distance, here's a pic of it visible at daylight from forest. Plus on the tape the marx brothers said they were running around the forest seeing a light though the trees.

And this one you can see the shield is not blocking that direction. Opps




Oh and this web link has a full list of everything that was occuring at that time that can very well be your precious ufo.
BBC

Of course we're all covering up the ufo invasion and we're coming to assimilate you. Resistance is futile.

This is all in your head Sky. Your "past track record" is posting old cases with testimonys,UFOsightings and stories,nothing airtight whatsoever. To my disapointment even your trace cases were laughable. Nothing that can be sold ONLY as ET.

You have validated nothing.

Lets rehash this shall we? Because you want to believe aliens are landing for a kegger in the middle of a forest but lets see the real situation. At that date Russian rocket reentry was spotted throughout Southern England, A meteor shower was active in the sky, Sirius which is abnormally bright between Christmas and New Years was visable, and a skeleton crew on base during holiday (which most have either admitted to a hoax or recanting their testimony.) Only one that has stood his ground is the one that is making money off it, Charles Halt. See above post that the lighthouse is visable from the forest and base, but lets ignore the lighthouse for now and go right to the next part of your list of flimsy evidence. Scortched earth was never found, although the rabid ufologists will swear by it, the impressions are clearly bunny burrows, which are prevelent in the area. Check Halts sketch with the great consistancy of using uniform measurements throughout the diagram. The castings of the said impressions can clearly be seen probably in your backyard if you are lucky enough to get a family of bunnies living there. And radiation levels as previously pointed out are well within normal tollerences and is of nothing accredited to being abnormal. BUT lets take all this stuff and ignore the truth, jump to an improbable conclusion and then not have any scientific proof to back it up.

As far as replying to you morrison and sky, I don't do it to flame you, I know that you guys are not capable of looking at this objectively, but rather for other readers of this thread to be exposed to the truth of what really happened that night, and not some wild theroy's.

We get it...Sky is quite famous for his "tunnelvision".

yes they were and responded to it.

here is a link to their report showing absolutly nothing out of the ordinary. http://www.suffolk.police.uk/Useful+Inform...+Rendlesham.htm
Theres a link there to a PDF file of said reports and following inquiries into said report.


But I am guessing they were intercepted by the MIB, or oscar the grouch.



I personally am going with oscar the grouch. He has a sinister plan against humanity.

still waiting for the part where i said Aliens landed there. putting words in people mouths, to try to strengthen your weak arguemnt. but dont worry, like ill give you plenty of time to edit your post, or try to find where i said it was Aliens landing there, or apologize to everyone for the massive typo. dont worry about it friend ill be back in a bout 6 hours. so you have time. aaaaand, go!

Uh so what you're saying is that it wasn' alien in nature that there was no aliens there? Well I'm glad I converted you. Guess what you are saying that it was just something mundane like I've been showing all this time. Glad you joined the winning side. Or are you trying to win an arguement with symantics because you have nothing left in your arsenal? Weak arguement? I'm the only one here showing scientific objectivism, which your "evidence" can not withstand.

hmm, interesting *looks around to try and see where he said that as well*
well shoot the horse, and paint me red. i cant find that part Either! ha! crazy

You like putting words in people mouths dont you. I never said it was ET either. I need proof for that, but that does not mean i have to believe in the feeble, make no sense explanations that have been put forward. The light house would have been visable, but only a small dot of light, and only in certain parts of the base. While they were viewing these objects, they could see the light house for what it was, a dot in the distance. Even now, with most prob a powerful bulb than the one used 27 years ago, today, it still looks like a white dot in the distance, so how the hell these "skeptics" can say that this was the cause is beyond me. And even shooting stars, me, like many people have seen shoot stars, and thats what they are, i am no expert, but me, who has seen many shooting stars would necer think it was a ufo, moving up,down, shooting a beam of light, and seperating into other objects, that is just plain stupid. For me, it comes down to two things

1- they are all lying
2- they did see what they thought they saw.

Also, something you failed to answer. What about when the witnesess walked up to the object, which was on the ground. Was that swamp gas, were they lying, or not seeing what they thought they were seeing????

I don't think so! Apparently, my so-called "tunnelvision" has proven me correct on many occasions.

If you go back on the years in history, you will have found the the skeptics have consistently found themselvs on the wrong side of the fence in our debates when the facts were eventually revealed some time later, and I do keep records!

I have heard it all before from the skeptics during our debates, which meant nothing, since they evetually found they were wrong!!

After all, they do not bother to do their homework and that is why they have consistently found themselves on the wrong side of the fence. Would you like to see some examples?!

LOL!!

If your photo of that light in the forest was an example of your "scientific objectivism," then the Earth is flat, and the map provided is that proof!

From the "Halt Memo."



A UFO is visible in the sky for two to three hours. Yep, sounds like a meteor in the skeptics camp!


UFOs "moving in sharp angular movements and displayed green and blue lights." Sounds like more meteors.




That is not what the map shows, nor what those who were present at the base were saying! The map proves that the lighthouse can't bee seen from the East Gate of the base and the backshield of the lighthouse was yet another obstacle as well, and that in addition to military personnel at the base, including my compartiots, that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base, nor was responsible for the UFOs in the sky. In other words, the skeptics got duped!!



I am very sure you want to get rid of the lighthouse, especially since those who were there have said that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base, and that a skeptic who went to the base has now confirmed that the lighthouse can't be seen from the base. Check out the nice view of the lighthouse where the forest is at least one mile wide at this point, and that, in addition to the backshield attached to the lighthouse that faces the base.

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/REN_EastGRd1981.jpg

Sometimes, "I told you so," just doesn't seem to say it well enough!

What kind of physical evidence would that be??

Remember. to be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists, a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that arent present around our sun, chemical elements form the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that dont exist in this starsystem. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.

But there are no scrapings, no parts of the craft, no bodies, no ripped page from the alien captains log book. Only stories.

Unknown chemicals with properties that have no eartly explanation, in addition to soil samples with strange properties within the landing area that is completely different from the surrounding soil, and plant mutations within the landing site and radiation readings within the landing site that is far above normal from the surrounding area.

Samples were tested and no earthly explanation could be found.

A prestigious three-day international conference was held at the
Sheraton washington in Washington, D.C. on May 27-29, 1995 on the subject of
what should be Earth's proper response, when it comes out in the open that we
are being visited by cultures from elsewhere.

either lying or seeing the training recovery becon.

not true at all.

Actually you are wrong from the scientific analysis of this video. The point was TUBITAK stated (after extensive analysis) that the video was definitely of material objects (not light tricks etc). They specifically ruled out all known helicopters aircraft etc and said it truly was a UFO. They stopped a long way short of saying it was ET and would not be able to state dimensions or the like. So what we are left with is a video backed up by eye witnesses that displays evidence of physical UFOs (in the literal sense of a physical unidentified flying object).

What really amazes me about this is the total lack of media attention to it. Even if it doesn't prove anything it is one of the few videos backed up as real by a respectable credited scientific organisation. Why does this have so little airplay?

Like I said previously you can't tell if this is on the ground in the air or what size it is how far away it is. To me it looks like headlights of a car in a field but I'm no expert and its really hard to disern. At best I would say its an Unidentified Video Object. Neat video though and stirs the imagination. I would also say that its not a video hoax, meaning it wasn't created by software or similar means. But like I said it doesn't make it a real ufo either.

No, but "Haha I'm so smart because I think you're all .....SNIP.......
Yes, as far as you're concerned (and this has been pointed out to you by many others) anyone who goes looking for any explanation other than "grab your tinfoil hat, it's ET boys" is stupid and needs to be taught a lesson.

The only point you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you don't care at all what the truth is, so long as you can 'own' every UFO/Roswell thread there is.

And never once has it crossed your mind that the only attention this phenomena gets is when there is a UFO researcher chasing a publishing deal. Why is that? Surely you'd think that those people would be just like the rest of their audience and want the truth to be known to all, and not just those who line their pockets. So much for the concept of the truth being priceless.

I still find the opinions of the local policemen more compelling than those of a few tourists who wanna UFO book deal for Christmas

Plus the policemen are locals, familiar with local weather conditions such as fog and such. Which they have a lot of there. Even the Air Force patrol isn't from around there and wouldn't be too familiar with terain and local weather phenomina.

Of course it's true!

In fact, one of the lab technicians was on one of the science channels several months ago outlining procedures that were used on the physical evidence samples collected at one of the landing sites.

The investigator who headed the investigations was an associate of J. Allen Hynek, who was himself, a former UFO skeptic.

I wouldn't put it that way, but the point I was making when I posted the photo of the forest, was to prove once and for all, that it was impossible to see the lighthouse through the one-mile wide forest at that particular point, and that in addition of the light-blocking backshield on the lighthouse that faced toward the base.

I provided a number of other clues that went unheeded, and amongst them, the former lighthouse supporter who went to the Rendlesham area and found for himself that the lighthouse couldn't be seen from the East Gate of the base. Another clue was that military personnel have said the the lighthouse couldn't be seen from the base.

All of those clues that were clearly evident, but the skeptics kept going after those skeptical websites for support when all actuality, the websites didn't know what they were talking about either! So the question is; with all of those facts clearly evident, why are the skeptics still pushing a lighthosue that has already been proven beyond any doubt as a non-issue in the Rendlesham UFO incidents?

Apparently, some of the locals were shown on video interviews comfirming the UFO accounts of the U.S. military, including the UFOs in the sky.

I saw this episode and the data was anything but conclusive of anything out of the ordinary. And absolutely nothing of alien origin, meaning no isotopes of anything outside our solar system. Good try though to make something out of nothing. I also love how you avoid all the things that were documented such as the rocket reentry from russia, the meteor storm and Sirius. Plus the lighthouse, which in December, with a lack of foilage, is quite visable at night. As previous pictures that I posted have proven. Instead you back up your data with an ex-colonel whose made some cash off all this, and soon after this "fiasco" resigned and is now a talking head of ufologists. I have no doubt he knows he is lying but hey I don't blame him to take money from suckers such as yourself. And the recanting of service men involved in this, and also admittance of others of it being a hoax. But those don't count because they don' fit into your house of glass defense. Point is not any one of these in paticular, but rather there is a HUGE viable terrestrial explanations that can very well be it. And with no physical proof and only an audio tape, which is previously shown to be no proof at all, but rather a statement, and a report by Halt, which is also contradicted by the County Police of the area is pretty darn weak.

Apparently, you missed the video interviews with the local population that confirmed the U. S. military accounts.

If you did, then you would have heard the results were extremely unusual and it was found that there were no earthly explanation for the lab results.

which means absolutely nothing. And not local population, like 5 people. Of which the police were not these witnesses and were there at that time with no results even close to your claims, and might I add claims with no evidence.

If you had been following the evidence, you would have found that the UFOs were maneuvering in ways that is not consistent with movements of meteors nor satellites.



The forest was just as thick in December 1980 during the UFO incidents, as it was in that photo I posted. Besides, military personnel have already stated that they have been aware of the lighthouse and that the lighthouse was not responsible for the triangular UFO in the forest.

There were many civilian witnesses to the Rendlesham UFOs in the sky, which confirmed the military accounts.

I am done discussing the aleged Rendlesham UFO. Skyeagle has made his point and I have refuted it with significant rebuttles to show that there is no real science to his claims. I'm not changing my mind unless there is scientific evidence, and he is sold on his beliefs. But I am willing to take a look at anything that anyone else has to show, and no I'm not giving up sky, but someone needs to call a truce and I know that fanatics can not let go so I am obligated to do so, if not for your behalf, then for the behalf of keeping this thread open for others to share any ideas, evidence or such to keep it from being a skyeagle post-a-thon.

No you haven't, and the fact that the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980 remains officially unexplained to this very day, is that proof that you haven't refuted anything!





http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/image/headline1.jpg

And they found something that couldnt possibly originate from our starsystem!!?

This sure sounds promising. Can I have a link to that report please.

Thank you for that.

This in no way makes Skyeagle a "winner" in this matter, as he likes to think. He has proved nothing. It only shows us how his abillity and obsession can wear down the skeptics. Thats it.

Like he said himself -"the fact that the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980 remains officially unexplained to this very day..." And as we skeptics already know, unexplained is not the same as Alien.

Maybe someone could divulge some of these secrets for us UFO Secrets Revealed Link
I have somewhat of a moral objection to paying the discounted $27 for the downloadable 'truth'

(a discount of $37 off the original $57?!? 57-37=27??? Maybe we're seeing some distortion of the continuim.)

Manly move, there, Tommyo. I applaud you.

I am just bringing reality out into the open.

I have been saying no weather balloon was involved in that famous incident, and the skeptics didn't believe me, and a Mogul balloon wasn't involved in that famous incident and the skeptics, and even some UFOlogist, didn't believe me, but in a twist, I've said the MJ-12 dcouments were not valid and the skeptics agreed, but some UFOlogist didn't believe me.

I have said that test dummies and accident victims were not involved in that famous incident, no lighthouse was involved in another famous incident, no satellite wsa involved in yet another incident involving NORAD, and that a Russian-built 'Backfire' bomber wasn't involved in the 1976 Iranian UFO incidents. I have disagree with UFOlogist in Europe that a secret aircraft was involved in yet another famous case and it took a declaration from the U.S. government, radar data, information from the AIM/FAR, Part 91, 817, and Apendix B, sections, 1, 2, and 3, and real facts on how the military really conducts secret test flights that validated my claim.

In another incident, I'd said no planets were involved and the skeptics disagreed, until it was found that radar tracked the UFOs and the planets weren't even in the same patch of sky as the UFOs. The skeptics later admitted they were wrong when the facts came in. And of course, there was the Kirtland AFB fiasco with you-know-who, and the results afterwards, and another incident involving NORDAD, and the list ooes on and on.

So yes, I am just bringing out the reality and the skeptics don't listen until its too late because they don't do their homework properly, and history has proven my point, time and again.

The l anding site in question was televised on TV since the eyewitness interviews, and that of the lab technician, plus the lab esults were conducted on video, but the person who led the investigation was an associate of J. Allen Hynek, and I am sure that he could give further details since he is involved in physical evidence involving UFO landing sites.

I will be done before long as well, because I am heading for Texas tomorrow.

See ya later!

so what do you think about the explanations to this case. Do you beleieve it was the light house and shooting stars? I find this explanation quite stupid, and the reasons are plain to see! That does not mean its ET, but at the same time, that should not mean that you have to agree with every skeptics explanation, no matter how stupid it sounds.

Yeah, we all know you are not going to change your mind, and we all know that know matter what the witnesess saw, you will always agree with the skeptics view, no matter how stupid it it and sounds, but thats your problem at the end of the day.

i dont think that your a bad investigator Sky..We all need people like you (a dog with a bone) in this field. ....I just think that your WAY to quick in calling something unexplained an alien starship. If you were more of a skeptic,alot more, you would be the perfect UFO investigator. As it is now you are adding to the ridicule factor that already infects the ETH.

As we already know morrison....there are blind faith credolous believers and there are real scientists interested in the UFO fenomenon. On the other side we have the skeptics and of course the closed minded debunkers. Any and all extremists belief is not a good thing,not in religion and not in this debate.

Have a safe trip and remember my personal moto: Just say no to anal probing!