Im not sure if this threads been done but i found these documents thought i'd share..enjoy

Watch the debunkers stay away from this thread.

of course they will. because they are official government documents...anyone have anything else on this incident?

I listened to a sound file on this case. It's on the um somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. If so I'll post it here.

Yes indeed! Some of my compatriots were stationed there during the incident except for one who later came in after the fact.

There have been skeptics who've claimed that the lighthouse was responsible but my compatriots told me you can't see the lighthouse from the base. There are obstructions such as the forests that prevent the lighthouse from being seen at all and besides, the lighthouse has a back-shield facing the base was well. One skeptic researcher who'd claim that the lighthouse was responsible for the UFO in the forest went there to have a look for himself and found that it was indeed impossible to see the lighthouse from the base so that it became a matter of an education on reality for him.

Another skeptic ploy was to claim that the UFO was that of a Russian satelllite that crashed. That left me scratching my head because weren't the skeptics aware of the time line regarding those incidents? How about the descriptions of mulitple UFOs overhead? Multiple nights of the sightings? I guess they were not aware of the facts surrounding those incidents.

Some skeptics jumped on yet another skeptic bandwagon (my favorite) and claimed that a security policeman was responsible for the UFO in the forest. The skeptics kept insisting that the police car was responsible since it had been shown and proven, that no way was the lighthouse responsible for that incident. The story went like this and look who he took for a ride with his police car hoax claim.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <^?

KEVIN CORDE TAKES THE RENDLESHAM SKEPTICS FOR A RIDE!
RENDLESHAM - UFO HOAX

Kevin Conde exclusively reveals that the lights were a result of a practical joke

"One interesting utterance that a puzzled Halt gives on the tape recording is, "The red, white and blue lights of the UFO are still hovering over Woodbridge. "But former USAF Security Policemen, Kevin Conde, has exclusively revealed that these lights were the result of a practical joke he played on the gullible airman. Conde says, "I drove my patrol car out of sight from the gatehouse, turned on the red and blue emergency lights and pointed white flashlights through the mist into the air."

"The bottom line is that, that was not a UFO it was a 1979 Plymouth Volare!" explains a bemused Conde. Conde says, "If they're out in the forest seeing red and blue pulsing lights and I'm back here doing this prank with red and blue pulsing lights, what else do they think they're seeing?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...olk/3033428.stm


If you have never witnessed an car accident before, check out this crash-of-reality.

Conde Exposed

"Interestingly, Kevin Conde had decided that his prank wasn't responsible for the incident long before he was interviewed by BBC INSIDE OUT or the Daily Mail newspaper. In an Internet debunking newsletter he told the editor: "This incident [hoax] occurred right after Christmas. For reasons that are hard to explain it is my impression that I pulled my stunt during an exercise. We would not have had an exercise during the Christmas holiday."

"That is a strong indication that my stunt is not the source of this specific incident."

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/update...l/m14-003.shtml


With that admission by Kevin Conde, that battered police car hoax battered more than just its own fenders, it battered a lot of skeptical heads as well. BTW, what's the number for that tow truck?

thanx sky i figured you would have something on this extra-ordinary event....

now that was interesting.

You're welcome!

Here's Colonel Halt's memo that originally the British MoD denied.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/Haltmemo.jpg


Here's more on the Rendlesham UFO incidents.


UFO INVASION AT RENDLESHAM

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

This is a very important case and one that is not so easily dismissed. These documents gives a good insight on what happend, and also what the government interests were in the case. But de-bunkers, i suggest you read all of it and not just read one part!

Perhaps, they will take a closer look now. After all, their three options, ( the lighthouse, the Russian satellite and the police car) were abducted by the Rendlesham UFOs.

i dont think many de-bunkers will use this thread once they see it anyway

Hehe, first of all I guess you are referring to me, among others I would love to get into this one - I am always up for a good discussion, heated or not. But in all fairness I don't have to the time to read through all the literature required to give an educated opinion. If I get the time I will get back to it!

Best,
Badeskov

What a crap excuse lol:) ok, there is quite alot to read, some of it is repeats of the same documents, but different times.
Happy readinf!:)

Oh, I have already started reading Crappy excuse maybe, but I like to enter the discussion "well dressed"! And I am sure you would rather have some good arguments to counter rather than a bunch of non-coherent statements!

Best,
Badeskov

Of course:)

Hehe, I know and I respect that! Discussions like that are definitely the best; you give ground and you lose ground! Either way, it is rewarding for both sides.

Best,
Badeskov

yes they are:) i like this forum alot and all the people are cool. Except for my new nemisiss hazzard lol;) its all good:)

Are you telling me that I am not your nemesis anymore; I am very disappointed

Best,
Badeskov

Its def hazzard! one point he was going to complain about me to the forum makers for bullying. I am def not a bully, just a bit over passionate about the subject sometimes, but im learning to contril it now lol I like hazzard and i like it when we disagree:)

oh come on. Do we have to fight about this topic being fake. Please don't I just found something I can believe in I don't want to lose it again. Please don't get me confussed again.

what do you believe??

this case I believe it to be real. And the travis walton case I believe that to be real as well.

Rendleshem is a very good casem one of the best. the travis walton case i have not really looked in too, so i will not judge that one until i do:)

here's the sound file:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/galle...ls.php?album=36

YEP, ive heard it already. I know quite a bit about this case already:) Something did happen that night, alien or human, who knows!

Getting personal in a heated debate is not that uncommon. I suggest that we all try and stay objective, no matter what.



I know that you just love "getting on my nerves". I can understand that, but you must also understand that its a well known "woo woo tactic" and sometimes people dont see the difference between the old ad hominem and kidsplay....

One last thing morrison, wether you know it or not, you my friend, are a closet skeptic.

I felt that! like a knife in the heart!:)
I am a believer, i just wont beilive everything. I hate hoaxes more than anything, and i know there is so much of that now.

If you can, go chek out the billy mieier case. That has to be one of the worst hoaxes out there, but it has so many believers, even when some of the photos are clearly fake. But i am a strong believer:).
I admit, i do wind up de-bunkers sometimes, but thats makes this forum so much fun!!!!:)

dont mind hazzard he's so close minded he doesnt look at the evidence.

Evidence!!? You meen like your story that "200 trillion federation ships are going to save us from the reptillians", for all of mankind to see, around christmas. Is that the kind of evidence you are talking about?


Closed Minded - Someone who displays an irrational tendency to need Hard Evidence before believing a claim may be true, and/or someone who feels a need to suggest mundane explanations for UFOs, crop circles, animal mutilations, etc., when these are all clearly caused by aliens.

Closed Minded- [A skeptic who refuses see reality for what it is].

Does weather balloon and Roswell come to mind?

Make that your reality .




Yes it does, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with me.

Answer me this sky, is there a UFO case that you dont buy, you know, one that seems just a little bit too out there.?? Cropcircles?? Abductions??

dude I really dont care if you believe me..just open your eyes sometimes...Ive been on 3 trips to the Andromeda galaxy...Im pretty sure im the only one on earth who has...you could learn something from me..but you choose to laugh and ridicule me...soon you will tell people you knew me...and they will say your making it up....

LIMITED!!!!! I like you:) you are a character:)

Why? I know what I am talkikng about. That is why the skeptics continue to bite the dust when the facts are made known and the Roswell incident is a case in point as will be the case on radar contacts and UFO reality.



Hazzard, I have gone on the record as stating that most UFO reports can be easily explained as hoaxes, misidentifications, weather-related phenomena. etc. I am very skeptical of any UFO report until I have had the time to examine the report in detail. A case in point was the famous Mexico City UFO video, which looked very convincing to say the least but I didn't jump to any conclusions. I remained skeptical because Mexico City is a very big town and what made me skeptical was that even though the video was filmed during the day, there were no visual reports of that UFO as you would expect over a city of millions. That is why I never accepted the Mexico City video as authentic. Now, had there been thousands of witnesses that corroborated that UFO during the time of the filming, then that would be another story.

No one is more skeptical of UFO reports than myself and that is why I must examine those reports in detail before making any judgement calls . I am very interested mainly in the radar/visual cases because the radar contacts and eyewitness accounts corroborate one another in much the same way that an aircraft's Black Box corroborates eyewitness testimony during the course of an aircraft accident investigation.

So, don't think for an instant that I tend to jump on any UFO bandwagon without first buying my ticket to reality.

Nice post skyeagle409. Like me also, i tend to look at a case before preaching about it, thats the best way to do it because then if you have done your homework, then you should be able to back it up. Like the roswell case, you ask most skeptics about that case and they will say oh it was project M, before that it was a weather balloon. Now, like me if you know the case well, then you know that this cant be, and you will know that the government blatantly lied to the public. Roswell is a very important case.

I love the roswell weather balloon arguments...sigh; it reminds me of will smiths explanations.

Actually this is exactly one of the first things that I look for and check out -

Time of Day:
Location:
Witnesses - If you have something this "big" and it''s not a rural area and during an hour where you know people are around. Then you see, hear or read NO other reports. That some how - it was for 'these specific eyes only' and for their camera only - that makes it seriously suspect.

Now another point. I have a friend that works for the local major news station. I asked, 'what would happen if video like these - showed him some video - and you had over a 100 different witnesses. Would you show it on the news. The answer was yes, they would - no problems. In fact locally they did show a UFO here in the last year on a different station. That was even dialoged on this forum.

So they are not as closed as we are led to believe. They simply cannot show a piece of video that only has 1 or 2 witnesses. As my friend stated, "We are very well aware of the hoaxes out there. Jj, you'd be surprised at the videos we get sent to us on this topic. I know our station alone averages about 7- 10 videos a month! But they can never be validated beyond the one or two people. These are video of UFO over the city where you would have to understand more than just two people would see this." He's right.

So the news isn't anti-ufo videos - as statd they actually get quite a "few".

Now for this specific. I archived this site as a PDF and am going through it. I've seen a few TV specials about this. I a labeled "debunker" would say, "This specific case is a valid UFO case." There see - "debunker" admited - Valid UFO.

But I still stand my ground - UFO does NOT equal AFO, that would require a whole lot of evidence and proof. "We do not have this kind of technology" - is not proof. For then I would have to ask, "and you know this, how??" There is so much out there we simply do not know what "top secrets" are flying around from various countries and projects that are multi-country supported. We simply do not know.

Jj -

sky what do you think of the randelsham forest ufo incident.

have you really been to the andromedia galaxy? As in out of body experiences?

It's amazing that the Air Force pulled off the weather balloon cover-up for 47 years and then turned around and pulled it off again with a Mogul balloon train #4 that never flew but what really caught my eye is that the Air Force didn't stop there, they managed to convince people that alien bodies people saw in 1947 were accident victims and test dummies of the 1950s and one of the accidents the Air Force said was responsible for Roswell incident happened in 1959.

If I were that good, I could convince people that the reason a Boeing 747 crashed in California in 1985, was because it was shot down over Berlin in 1944.

Thanks! I am very skeptical of UFO reports that have no further backing other than just one witness, especially over an area where there should have been many witnesses.

I can still remember one of our KC-10 tankers, a military version of the civlian DC-10, doing a touch-and-go landing at an airport in Northern California one night. Apparently, it must have had all of its formation lights on and when it does, it almost looks like a flying Christmas tree. The green formation strip lights would have been very strange for anyone to see who have not seen such lights before. As it was, the KC-10 was confused as a UFO and reported in one of the local newspapers as such. After a short investigation it was found that the UFO was in fact one of our aircraft. That was a clear case of mistaken idenfication of a conventional aircraft and it is quite common.

What hurts the UFO issue are those who hoax UFO photos for fame and financial gain and one name that comes to mind is that of Billy Meier. The guy produces such poor quality UFO photos that I just roll my eyes to the back of my head when I see his photos. For an example, one of his photos show a huge UFO hovering just above the ground and one thing that catches my eye right away is that there's no shadow on the ground below the object even though the sun is directly overhead. Another problem I have with Billy Meier is that he seems to be in the right place to take photos of UFOs that no one else sees and he has taken hundreds of photos and videos, which have now been proven to have been phonies. None of his UFO photos were convincing to me and he has since been exposed and sued but that doesn't surprise me at all.

One of the most impressive UFO events in my eye are the Washington D.C. UFO incidents of 1952. I went to the local library years ago and researched publications dating back to that year and was surprised at the magnitude of what took place over our nation's capital. One of the publcations I reviewed was LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40. What I read in that magazine was chilling. Other publicatons of that time frame also reported similar chilling accounts of UFOs all over the skies that shook up our government yet not many people today are aware of what happened back then. Simply amazing!

The reason I stand the way I do on UFOs is that if we had such advance technology, we wouldn't be flying around in outdated jet-propelled aircraft. Currently, we are just getting into memory metals with properties of materials as described in the Roswell incident of 1947. The govenment continues to cover-up what happened there and if that object that crashed there was truly a secret aircraft of ours, it would have been revealed to us by now, so one must ask the question as to what advance technology or craft that was so important that requires the government to continue to keep it a secret after all of these years?

Over the years, classified aircraft such as the U-2, A12 Oxcart, SR-71, YF-12, F-117, Have Blue, Tacit Blue, B-2, and even the so-called "Aurora," have been revealed. Not many folks knew that back in the early 1990's CNN revealed a new hypersonic aircraft on its news program and then suddenly we never heard anything else about it but I was aware of that aircraft back in the 1980's well before it was revealed on CNN. Eventually, secret aircraft are revealed but the Air Force continues to this very day to cover-up the Roswel incident and one must ask the question; why? What is the Air Force hiding?

Other reasons for my stance on UFOs is that I understand the nature of the data evidence and its relationship on UFO reality. I know that weather played no part in the cases that I have noted and many of my follow pilots will, and have, concurred over the years. To continue, I had an UFO experience in Vietnam and some of my compatriots were stationed at Ben****ers during the UFO incidents in 1980 with the exception of one who came a bit too late afterwards so I know that UFOs are real based on my experience, my compatriots and my understanding of picture the data evidence reveals.

Now that's funny.

It's really amazing how easy the Air Force has been able to convince people of anything it wants.

Yes it is. Apparently, they must think we are stupid just because we don't hold a high ranking position in the u.s. military. Oh brother, Do you know how pethetic that sounds and is???



Oh well, enough of that. Did you read my question about randelsham. What do you think of the case? Obviously, you are already aware of the randelsham case. I'm just wondering what your opinion on that case is? Also what do you think about the Travis Walton case?

It was a real UFO encounter and much has been revealed to me that hasn't made it to the internet yet. One issue was that of the nukes and it was a very sensitive issue at the time. To further add, local civilians also watched the UFOs in the sky and I expect more information to be revealed eventually.

Damage to the trees were noted along with other physical evidence left at the landing site.

What has been revealed to you that's not on the internet yet? If you don't mind me asking.

If you don't want to put it here on the um. You can always pm me.

The miliatary always hides technology to give itself more advantage, but the question becomes: if UFO are actually government technology, why would they fly it in plain sight for the public to see when they have testing ground for that? Mass hysteria is the last thing the government wants after all.

That's a very good question. That's see what sky says.

While we are on the subject, why make open rumours about its operations? For classified information, the government is being very careless with them.