Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Karlis

[Merged] Rendlesham Incident 1980:

832 posts in this topic

The incident had been known as Britain's Roswell: American servicemen stationed in Suffolk go into a forest to investigate mysterious lights and emerge convinced they have seen an alien spacecraft. Now, the man who led the only investigation into the "Rendlesham Forest Incident" has spoken about the sightings - but his decision to end thirty years of silence is unlikely to please the UFO-believers as he suggests his men could have been hoaxed. arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinda freaky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Penniston on TV many times over the years. OK I confess I'm one of the few who actually believes something ET happened at Roswell so if I'm prepared to believe in that then I'm prepared to believe in Rendlesham. I mean, it always seemed to be the UK UFO story.

I still think something happened there that was out of the ordinary but maybe it wasn't ET out of the ordinary.

Don't know. Could have been UK/US experimental prototype aircraft.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Favorites > [Add to Favorites] ; Browse > Paranormal > Debunking > Rendlesham [OK]

Thanks for the article Karlis. :tu:

Between this and Ian Ridpath's website I don't see how anyone can rightfully still believe that this involved extraterrestrials. But certainly many will continue believing and will probably claim that Col Conrad is just part of the cover-up. It is far more exciting to believe that ET was responsible after all, doubly-so if there is a conspiracy trying to hide the whole thing from the public... :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to say what to believe sometimes. There are many sides to all these issues. In Genesis it says that God created the heavens and the Earth in seven days, but it doesn't say that on the eighth day God became a couch potato or that before he put Adam here he didn't try something somewhere else. Other parts of the Bible seem to support the ET concept. The folklore of Roswell was the result of one classified military project shooting down another classified military project. The public panic over aliens was allowed to foster because it kept the military secrets, secret. It also turned out to be good for military budgets and research to allow the folklore to foster even after those two projects were outdated by newer programs. Even the lore associated with AREA 51 is folklore, it's just researchers doing research work that is needed for national security. Where they got the money for the projects before congress appropriated them a budget is the secret their keeping, not ET. I myself, am not at liberty to file litigation for exposure to chemicals in the ground and groundwater at the facility indicated by Presidential Declaration 95-45. Sometimes we have tough choices to make. Also, there are as many possible research projects for alternative drive systems as there are corporations and countries to fund them. The space race may be between countries for the moment, but corporations won't be far behind. But, even though I have no reason to believe in ET, I still hold out hope. If they are there and they are watching us, chances are we wouldn't be able to see them with our current level of technology. If they are watching, why would they want anything to do with us, take a good solid look at how we act, what messages do our television and radio broadcast send out into space? Just from that, if you were an advanced race, would you consider coming here or would you just keep watching from a distance?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A very interesting case where UFOs dismantled our weaponry, as noted by those who were there, and they blame ET. I have also spoken to those who were stationed there, as they were my former co-workers, and they are all in agreement that ET was responsible.

428px-Haltmemo.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENMQQ_Aob70

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one them could validate it? OR none of them WOULD validate it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering, is it true that none of the soldiers had weapons in this scenario? I'm asking because I'm having trouble believing none of the troops actually reported pointing any weapon at any of what was seen. Which seems odd since it is a military base...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds to me like a kind of semi-official response to Halt's participation in the National Press Club briefing. I'd take it with a drain of salt.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't believe in any UFO story. Why? Because they're always at night, There's never any evidence. There is never a clear picture of the craft. It's not difficult to cover up something in the military. You're told if you say anything about this you will be sent somewhere and will disappear off the face of the earth. And the military can do that. While I was in the military, Military Intelligence/Counter Intelligence Agent, there were a couple people I caught. They were brought in but would not sign the non-disclosure act. They were warned what the consequences would be if they didn't sign it. And sure enough a couple days later they were no longer on base. I wanted to further interrogate one of them but was told he'd been sent to Levenworth Prison. Well I contacted Levenworth (which is also a military base) and spoke with both one of my counter parts and with prison officials and they both told me that they never heard of this person. I had some friends and they did some checking and they couldn't locate this person. He just vanished. Depending upon the seriousness of the event the non-disclosure can be any where from 5 years to life time. And they take this extremely serious. Why do you think no one from Area 51 ever talks about it? There's a couple nuts out there who have tried but usually it turns out they had nothing to do with the classified events there and they definitely were not give access to any of the classified areas. Of course they don't want any one to see what''s going on there. That's where they test most of the classified new aircraft. The AF71, the F22, the F35 were or are all being tested there. So until someone can produce solid evidence and a clear, close up photograph and one that's not taken only at night and the craft is not near any classified area, I'll never believe any of the UFO stories.

Edited by retired Army MI Aent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Favorites > [Add to Favorites] ; Browse > Paranormal > Debunking > Rendlesham [OK]

Thanks for the article Karlis. :tu:

Between this and Ian Ridpath's website I don't see how anyone can rightfully still believe that this involved extraterrestrials. But certainly many will continue believing and will probably claim that Col Conrad is just part of the cover-up. It is far more exciting to believe that ET was responsible after all, doubly-so if there is a conspiracy trying to hide the whole thing from the public... :hmm:

Easy to be a believer these days, isnt it boon!

Win, win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to be a believer these days, isnt it boon!

Win, win.

Depends how that opinion was formed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering, is it true that none of the soldiers had weapons in this scenario? I'm asking because I'm having trouble believing none of the troops actually reported pointing any weapon at any of what was seen. Which seems odd since it is a military base...

All of the published accounts relate to claimed events off either Woodbridge and/or Bentwaters base(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in any UFO story. Why? Because they're always at night, There's never any evidence. There is never a clear picture of the craft. It's not difficult to cover up something in the military. You're told if you say anything about this you will be sent somewhere and will disappear off the face of the earth. And the military can do that. While I was in the military, Military Intelligence/Counter Intelligence Agent, there were a couple people I caught. They were brought in but would not sign the non-disclosure act. They were warned what the consequences would be if they didn't sign it. And sure enough a couple days later they were no longer on base. I wanted to further interrogate one of them but was told he'd been sent to Levenworth Prison. Well I contacted Levenworth (which is also a military base) and spoke with both one of my counter parts and with prison officials and they both told me that they never heard of this person. I had some friends and they did some checking and they couldn't locate this person. He just vanished. Depending upon the seriousness of the event the non-disclosure can be any where from 5 years to life time. And they take this extremely serious. Why do you think no one from Area 51 ever talks about it? There's a couple nuts out there who have tried but usually it turns out they had nothing to do with the classified events there and they definitely were not give access to any of the classified areas. Of course they don't want any one to see what''s going on there. That's where they test most of the classified new aircraft. The AF71, the F22, the F35 were or are all being tested there. So until someone can produce solid evidence and a clear, close up photograph and one that's not taken only at night and the craft is not near any classified area, I'll never believe any of the UFO stories.

How do the military explain to the families how their loved one has just disappeared then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then of course, there has always been a pro-ETH group in the military and intelligence agencies that has been disclosing things since the 1940s and 1950s, and even telling people where to send their FOIA requests to get declassified documents. Sometimes this disclosure is even semi-official, so once the "incident" has been disclosed or declassified, then there's no penalty for people who talk about it.

I don't think there even is a real anti-ETH group at all, just other people who are skeptical about too much disclosure. This has been going back and forth for years--decades--and I'm not sure that anyone has gotten really severe punishment for talking about UFOs.

I have heard that Col. Halt's career was cut short. Not because he saw a UFO but because his superiors got mad when it went public and they thought he was talking out of school too much. That's what I think is going on here. As for the UFOs themselves, everyone knows that the whole investigation got passed on up the line to "higher headquarters".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And despite the attacks on him, I think Robert Hastings has done an excellent job in piecing together many UFO incidents. He has had plenty of help from the pro-ETH group, or I should say the pro-disclosure group:

"From: Robert Hastings <ufohastings.nul>

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:47:25 -0400 (EDT)

Archived: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:59:14 -0400

Subject: Hastings On Clarke's 'New Light On Rendlesham'

I am responding to Dr. David Clarke's latest posts on UFO

UpDates and on his own blog.

Some days ago, largely in response to my contention that he is

not qualified to speak authoritatively about the UFO-related

events at RAF Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest, in December

1980, Dr. David Clarke began a new Rendlesham-related blog page

at his website...

While Clarke's first post predictably contains a number of

factual errors, oversights and fallacies which one might

address, I will confine my remarks here to only a couple of

items. The first relates to Clarke's December 2009 conversation

with Col. Ted Conrad, who contradicted several statements about

the UFO activity at Bentwaters/Rendlesham previously made by

Col. Charles Halt and others who, unlike Conrad, were directly

involved in the incidents:

Re: The Alleged Investigation By Col. Conrad

Clarke: I figured if anyone really knew what happened it would

be Col Conrad as by his own statement he was responsible for the

USAF investigation. So late in 2009 I contacted Col Conrad, now

retired from the USAF, and asked him to go on record.

In a 9/7/10 email to me, Halt responds: Conrad did not conduct

an investigation. I had all of the original participants make

statements and bring them to me. I interviewed each individually

and then took each to Conrad [so that he could] hear his

account. After the fact, I took Conrad and his family to the

[Penniston] site and showed them the indentations. That was his

total involvement. It was like a tar baby and he didn't want his

name associated with it. Nobody wanted the individuals'

statements so I put them in an envelope and put them aside. I

brought them out only after it all went public. Conrad even

described seeing a UFO as a pilot but never reported it as, in

his words, it was a "career-killer." He can't be so naive

as to believe the OSI wasn't involved!

Re: What Conrad Did Or Did Not See From His Front Lawn At

Woodbridge

Halt, on the Unsolved Mysteries television show, which aired

September 18, 1991, said: "We could very clearly see [the UFO] -

I noticed other beams of light coming down from the same object,

falling on different places on the base. My boss [Col Ted

Conrad] was standing in his front yard in Woodbridge and he

could see the beams of light falling down, and the people in the

[bentwaters] Weapons Storage Area and several other places on

the base also reported the lights."]

Clarke: Contrast Halt's recollections in 1991 with Conrad's 2010

statement which continues: "Lt Col Halt's report of more

lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few

people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there.

These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the

Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening

to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing.

Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good

field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled

Lt Col Halt's descriptions either in the sky or on the ground.

This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December

1980]."

Halt responds: Conrad and I conversed by radio as he was

watching the beams from his yard at Woodbridge Base. It's funny

how both [Gen. Gordon] Williams and Conrad are now having memory

problems."

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2010/sep/m14-003.shtml

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this "imaginary" UFO was tracked on radar:

"Re: The Radar-Tracking Of The UFO

The second item I will address in this post has to do with the

physical detection of the UFO at Bentwaters. In Clarke's first

post on his new blog page, I note his reliance on written and

oral statements by British radar personnel at the Twin Bases

(the latter taken decades later, by the way) to the effect that

no one tracked an anomalous object during the period of UFO

activity there in December 1980.

Well, as Clarke may or may not know, in journalist Leslie Kean's

excellent new book,"UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government

Officials Go On The Record, the person-in-charge at the British

Ministry of Defense's UFO Desk between 1991-94, Nick Pope, says,

"In the absence of any radar data that might confirm the

presence of the Rendlesham Forest UFOs, the investigation

petered out. Yet, as I was to discover years later, the UFO

*had" been tracked, after all."

Pope continues, "I spoke to former RAF radar operator Nigel

Kerr, who had been stationed at RAF Watton at Christmas 1980 and

had received a call from somebody at RAF Bentwaters. The caller

wanted to know if there was anything unusual on his radar

screen. He looked, and for three or four sweeps, something did

show up, directly over the base. But it faded away, and no

official report was ever made. It was only years later that Kerr

even heard of the Rendlesham Forest incident and realised he

might have a missing piece of the puzzle."

This new bit of information corroborates something I already

knew (and told Clarke about in 2009). As I noted in one of my

earlier rebuttals, posted at The UFO Chronicles website at:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/08/ufo-spin-in-uk.html

"I was able to track down and interview the two USAF air traffic

controllers who had been in the Bentwaters tower that week,

James H. Carey and Ivan 'Ike' R. Barker, both of whom report

tracking a high-velocity object during the period of the UFO

activity at the base. Barker also admits to seeing the object

momentarily, as it briefly hovered over the base, describing it

this way:

'I saw it out the window. It was basketball-shaped, and had sort

of an orangish glow. Not bright orange, uh, sort of dim, maybe

like the full moon would look behind a thin layer of clouds.

There seemed to be something across the center of it, lighter-

colored shapes like - don't laugh - like portholes or windows,

or even lights, in a row left to right, across its center. Maybe

six or eight of them. They were stationary, not moving across

the object. But it seemed spherical, not flat like a flying

saucer. I couldn't hear any noise. It wasn't huge, but I think

it was bigger than an airplane. I would say it was maybe twice

the size of an F-111. Now, there's a water tower at Bentwaters.

If you were in the air traffic tower, facing the runway, the

tower is almost behind you. [From my vantage point] the object

was directly over top of the water tower, or just past it. The

object [appeared] larger, maybe twice as large, as the tank on

the water tower. It stopped in mid-air for a few seconds,

probably 500-feet, uh, maybe a 1000-feet above the tower, then

it left. I didn't see it turn, uh, rotate or anything like that

before leaving. But what impressed me most was the speed this

thing had. I have never seen anything so fast in my life! It was

zoom, gone!'

Both Barker and Carey estimated that the object covered 120

miles in 8-12 seconds, based on the 60-mile tracking radius of

their Bright 2' radar scope."

In fact, the UFO appeared on radar for only 3-4 sweeps, the same

duration now reported by British radar operator Nigel Kerr,

according to Nick Pope. Also noteworthy is the fact that Kerr

did not officially report the tracking, just as Barker and Carey

did not report theirs, therefore precluding the existence of

written documentation on the incident.

Clarke, of course, makes much of the fact that no documents are

available to substantiate the physical presence of an anomalous

aerial object at Bentwaters, while at the same time rejecting

the on-record statements confirming such a presence made by the

air traffic controllers on duty that night. Why? Because the

important revelations by those informed witnesses do not support

Clarke's skeptical take on the Bentwaters case. And, besides,

those statements were made only *recently* and are, therefore,

suspect. Right, Dr. Clarke? Unlike the recent statements made by

Col. Conrad which are, of course, illuminating.

(See how that works, everybody? Recent witness statements which

support Clarke's position =3D Good. Witness statements which

undercut Clarke's position =3D Bad.)

Nevertheless, three radar operators - two Americans and one Brit

- say that an anomalous object was indeed briefly tracked during

the period of UFO activity at Bentwaters/Rendlesham. According

to one of them, Ike Barker, the track corresponded to the orange

basketball-shaped object he saw hovering over or near

Bentwaters' water tower. And remember, Kerr told Pope that the

unknown object *he* briefly tracked had been "directly over the

base" thereby substantiating Barker's recollection of its

location during the few moments it was stationary.

Of course, none of this will mean anything to Folklorist Clarke

who, in a recent post at UFO UpDates, told David Rudiak, "...the

obsession with attracting physical scientists to study UFO

propulsion systems is a waste of time. Without hard data to

subject to testing or replication, physical scientists have

absolutely no role to play in UFOlogy, despite what David Rudiak

may claim."

One might counter that the study of UFOs' performances as

evidenced by radar data, which are empirical not anecdotal,

would be a good starting-point in the study of these crafts'

technical and theoretical underpinnings, not to mention their

basic physical reality. Of course, an expert in elves and

fairies would have little to contribute to such an undertaking

and might feel left out.

In any case, my full response to Clarke's most recent brew of

naivete disingenuousness and hypocrisy will be posted at UFO

Chronicles at some date in the future, once I have completed the

more important tasks of that day (looking out the window at

clouds, feeding the birds, making a sandwich) at which point I

will give the UFO UpDates List a heads-up."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've heard from MI, what's the worst they could do to me, make me go back to work for them. There are things I know how to do that I wouldn't give them before I left. Still wouldn't cough them up now unless I had reason to believe MI wouldn't use the abilities poorly. I'm not all that into intimidation. If I disappeared it would only serve to cement into reality things I've let government officials know about. But just for the record, Presidential Declaration 95-45 was a public statement and still is. I have never and will never release any information on classified programs, not out of fear but out of love for my country. Just because I was a stellar performer and on the fast track, didn't mean I'd ignore right and wrong. They should've expected that after background investigations to insure integrity, some might just have that integrity. Have a nice day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think anyone in the ETH group ever released any information about secret military programs or classified projects, but if it's simply aliens and UFOs, that's a different question. I have no doubt that some of the UFOs are really ours or at least belong to "friendlies", but the fact that aliens are here visiting should not be secret. My opinion is that some of these are known to be friendly or at least not hostile, and others are just unknown, I have heard that some of them are not friendly, though.

As for videos like these, I think that they are at least partially true. Nuclear weapons are no longer being tested there, though, but unusual aircraft are, including some of "our" UFOs. That part I believe.

And no matter what you think of the Bob Lazar story, there's no doubt in my mind that we have our own "UFOs" flying around the Nevada Test area, and the TV crew that got too close to them did get chased around by security people and military helicopters. My suspicion is that our "UFOs" are not for terrestrial use at all, but some other purpose having to do with space.

Edited by TheMcGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I appear a little irritable, my intent for visiting this forum is to try to get people to think beyond what's commonly accepted. I've made one important point, light is an energetic effect passed by gravity. Putting material in space to block light getting to the earth won't help us with global warming or climate change. The effects of gravitational changes will pass right through that material as easily as it would any other.

Gravitation is a fundamental force, Light isn't. The photon is a particle but it is an energy particle developed during the decay of an electron. Light is generally stated as emitted simply because the oscillating effect transfers from one location to another. An emission, however, requires some form of carrier or conductor to transfer from one location to another, and frequencies don't necessarily require a carrier or conductor. Depending on particle types and concentrations in space, space generally has an impedance between 22 and 32 ohms per meter. Our atmosphere is generally between 25 and 30 ohms impedance per meter. That impedance varies to some degree over frequency. Light frequencies are often said to propagate along the medium of space at roughly 299,000 kilometers per second and do so without a good medium or carrier. Even in space with very few available particles light will show up on time every time at the expected distance traveled. It even happens well outside the range of electromagnetic field effect. However the photon effect on gravitation allows that transfer to happen without an associated medium. Any two particles have mutual gravitation, a force of attraction between them. If one of the particles is a decaying electron, the photon oscillations resulting from the particle decay will affect the relationship between the two particles causing an effective oscillation in the other particle. The decay of one electron is not by itself significant in it's effect. The decay of trillions of electrons per meter per second covering the entire photosphere of the sun is: it will cause the photon oscillations to pass through the gravitation effects to the particles in our earth and atmosphere. Every particle along the way is affected as are particles further out. That effect is propagated by gravitational relationship changes at a rate of roughly 299,000 kilometers per second. As a result, apx 8 minutes after the photons become apparent, the materials of the earth and the atmosphere will be affected by the changed relationships. Since each particle of mass produces it's own frequencies in energies; the relationship change caused by the photons, and carried by gravitation, changes the output energies of all the various particles. Atomic structures and molecular structures are also affected because each particle of mass in them is affected. The changes can include oscillation summing, coherent cancellation and frequency shifting. This combination of products is generally referred to as the combination of direct and reflected light. Particles and structures generally absorb the colors of visible light that they are producing and reflect the colors they are not producing. Typically, for a material to be a vivid blue, it's producing no radiant energy of it's own in the blue light spectrum. However, these effects are not limited to only the visible light spectrum of frequencies. The effect is, however, local energy rather than emitted energy from one location to another. The resulting friction, due to the difference between the normal and changed states, is felt as heat. The molecules constructing our bodies, more specifically our retinas, are the appropriate size to tune or perceive frequencies in the visible light spectrum. What we call visible light is only a small range of frequencies in a much broader range from audio to x-ray. We do more with the visible light spectrum of frequencies because we can see the results. What we can accomplish in the visible light spectrum can often be accomplished in a broader range of frequencies. Shifting frequencies for some applications can provide more usable results. We can still call it light because it is what we see, and accurately use the speed of light in formulas because it's still the maximum propagation velocity. While light frequencies are better than others for some applications, light is not some mystical fifth fundamental force or it's own type of particle. Light simply doesn't exist, but visible light frequencies do.

Some other points should also be made. Molecules are generally believed to be the result of covalent bonding but those bonds are more often the result of molecular orbital. Molecular orbital provide a valuable conduction path and also allow materials to be added to pollution sources that could change the pollutants to less damaging materials by conduction. Climate change has a built in electrical problem. Electrical circuits have three primary considerations for operation. A potential difference is used to initiate an maintain conduction. A source of available electrons is needed to establish and maintain current flow. Some form of conductor is needed to carry the electrons from the electron source to the potential difference. The thermal power of the circuit, specified in watts, is calculated multiplying the voltage difference by the current flow of the conductor. The current flow is regulated by the resistance of the conductor and can be calculated dividing the voltage differential by the resistance of the conductor. The Earth uses a similar circuit to release heat. Protons in space around the Earth create a significant positive charge or differential potential. Magma within the mantle of the Earth provides a significant level of free electrons. The surface of the Earth and the atmosphere work together to create a conductor. The atmosphere is typically less than thirty ohms per meter impedance and the silicone in the materials of the earth act as a good conductor. Although the electron is small, 1 electron volt is roughly 11,605 Kelvin in potential. The thermal energy of the electron is substantial, however, particle state and density contribute to average temperatures along with other available particles and structures. As electrons move from within the mantle to meet the free protons in space, they take their heat with them. The more electrons move through the atmosphere into space, the more heat moves away from the Earth.

One primary consideration to electron flow is the transition from the Earths surface to the atmosphere. The atmosphere tends to move with the Earths rotation because the atmosphere is part of the conduction path. The electron is passed from one atomic structure to another to complete the conduction. Without the conduction, the Earth would simply rotate under the atmosphere resulting in surface winds based on the Earths rotational speed. Since the Earth is spinning at around a thousand miles per hour at the equator, the equator would see wind speeds around a thousand miles per hour. The atmosphere generally follows the Earths rotation very well but increased wind speeds are predictable with a decreased rate of conduction. As an increase in seismic activity and volcanic flows follow an increase in the Earths temperature from decreasing surface conduction, an increase in the severity of windstorms follows the atmospheric lag increase from the decrease in rate of atmospheric conduction. Wind storms become more frequent and more severe.

The human population made some changes to the surface of the planet and those changes are creating dramatic effects in our lives. We've cut down much of the Earths forests. We've built homes, buildings and cities complete with paved parking and roads. We've added plumbed water and sewers, electrical power and gas lines, along with telephone and television cables. And, of course, we've added the pollution from our population and industry. In combination of all these things we've altered the rate of electrical conduction through the Earths surface and atmosphere and our global climate is changing as a result. Although it should be relatively easy to correct the problems without seriously impacting our lives, many of the things we do should be planned out better before we do them.

One of the things we need to change is how we deal with the worlds forests. Trees provide two major functions that significantly effect our environment. First, trees produce oxygen during the day and carbon dioxide at night. Due to the relationship of the two processes, trees generally remove about half a pound more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the day than they put back in overnight. As it stands we don't have enough trees to keep up with the carbon dioxide that's being added to the atmosphere. Even though carbon dioxide is not causing the Earth to have warmer temperatures, it will extend the period of a warmer climate and add to the problem. One way or the other carbon dioxide is a serious air quality issue. The second major function of the tree is increasing electron flow for surface and atmospheric conduction. About half of the tree is above ground with branches and leaves, the other half is below ground with extensive root structures. Wind moving through the branches and leaves creates static electricity. Part of the charge is transferred into the ground and increases conduction in the Earths surface. Part of the charge is also added to the atmosphere and increases conduction from the surface into the atmosphere. Together these two functions make trees and forest essential to our future.

Another major consideration is how we ground buildings and power lines. A national grid with common grounds will tend to hold conduction to a given level over the expanse of the grid. Since the grounds are needed for personal safety and to prevent signal noise in communications equipment, they are essential to have. It may be possible, however, to alter the grounding techniques to increase surface to atmosphere conduction.

How we deal with increasing pollution levels is another major concern. The increasing carbon dioxide levels decreases air quality. Planting enough trees will turn the carbon dioxide problem around over time but those trees take many years to grow. Carbon dioxide scrubbers can be used in the mean time, but taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will allow other pollutants to stay in the atmosphere longer. Consider that the atmosphere consists of many particles. For the most part the particles are in atomic and molecular structures, nonetheless they are still particles. Each particle contributes a portion of the heat to the average temperature. As the carbon dioxide is removed, the number of particles reduces and the average atmospheric temperature would go down. The surface temperature of the Earth, however, wouldn't. The excess electrons would still provide heat and the surface would heat the atmosphere. Other particles from other atoms and other molecules would be drawn into the atmosphere or held in the atmosphere longer to replace the removed carbon dioxide. Mercury, sulfur, hydrocarbons and acids would increase as long as we're still releasing them into the atmosphere. Without adding more pollutants, dust and pollens would hold in the atmosphere longer. What materials you and your family want to be breathing is the decision to make when evaluating pollution and climate change. Good changes can happen, but continuing to add pollutants while looking for solutions to global climate change will only change which problems we face in the future.

It isn't necessary to burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. geothermal resources and solar energy resources are easy to use. A venturi constructed of pipes and a water reservoir could make a more efficient process obtainable with current technologies. The venturi effect allows a jet airliner to transport hundreds of people and tons of materials over large distances at hundreds of miles per hour. We do, however, have the technologies to remove coal and oil from power production in the near future without using nuclear power or dams.

The earth’s internal heat can produce steam pressure for creating electrical power. How far down into the earth to go and what method to use are the questions to answer. Circulating air and capitalizing on the venturi effect seems the most effective and adaptable method. Rather than pumping water or other liquids requiring extensive support and expense, airflow through a venturi can be used with metal pipes and manifolds. The configuration of the pipes operates the same as the intake of a venturi. As the number of pipes is reduced, the cross sectional area is reduced. The air pressure tends to remain equal by increasing the airspeed. As the airspeed increases the air temperature drops. Throughout the length of the pipes, the cooled air collects thermal energy as it passes through the pipes from the available thermal energy in the ground. At the next stage of reduction, the process repeats itself. In fact, vertical pipes dropped into drilled holes would allow the pipes to be very long without consuming excessive real-estate. As the air is passing from the intake to the venturi throat it absorbs thermal energy by degrees until the air is input into the pressure vessel. The length of the pipes can be extended progressively at each reduction level to account for absorption surface and absorption time. In the pressure vessel, the air expands back out and slows down; dropping it’s accumulated heat into the water in the vessel. The resulting steam operates a turbine using the water surface as a backing plane. The cross sectional area ratio depends on the number of pipes used and can be varied as needed for design purposes, based on temperatures at the depth used and the volume of steam needed. Using a larger ratio, allows for geothermal power production closer to the surface.

It shouldn't matter where I learned science and technology or how I came to have an education, all that should matter is that people care enough to look for the truth. We live on an orbital garden, we should be better gardeners. If we want ET to show themselves to us in a positive manner, we should stop showing our dark side. Does anyone really think an advanced society would foster science without fostering ethics. One final point, the constant poking into military secrets and the intrusions into the intelligence community put my face on national TV as a villain, even though I'd never done anything to deserve the reputation. After that, the woman I was married to was afraid of me and asked for a divorce. Your constant badgering ruins peoples lives even when your wrong. One way or the other, I still have three children and three grandchildren that need a planet to live on that they would want to call home. Integrity does matter. And with that I'm out, have fun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, even though I have no reason to believe in ET

I do, and I don't think they're all hostile, but I've heard that some are. If some of them are here collecting human "samples" and "specimens" then I have no problem with us developing the technology to run them off--or obtaining help from friendly ETs to do so.

As to the positive benefits of this technology, I have no problem with it being distributed more widely.

On the other hand, I can understand if some kind of "deal" has taken place by which this cannot be weaponized for use on this planet, but only against any hostiles from "out there" if they show up. Our present political and social condition remains anarchic, after all, and we have to be careful of any potential weaponization of these advanced technologies that could make life on this planet even worse.

I think you are correct that it could be regarded as a "garden", and that we do have friends out there who want to help us preserve it. In the nature of things, though, there are others whose only goal is exploitation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in any UFO story. Why? Because they're always at night, There's never any evidence. There is never a clear picture of the craft.

If you are what you say you are, then you know very well that's not true. At any rate, I wouldn't have to waste much time arguing the point with you.

You do seem to have upset Broken Brain, though, but not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This might be more sand to throw on the fire, but will not ever be accepted as a be all end all solution. I do not think so anyway. Halt is still going to have his followers that will believe him as long as Aliens are with his version of events. As has been said it echoes Roswell in many ways. It is a take without substantiation that has been amplified by subordinates as opposed to the controlling authorities and the media has had a great time playing with it. It has enough ambiguity to fly under the Radar that has shot down cases like Kecksburg and a military official for pseudo validation. Something of an ETH happy meal.

Many debates will be waged about this claim yet, and the claims will increase as the years roll on. It's how the ETH rolls.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but talk. Where's the action? Sounds like something from a War of the Worlds radio serial, but not as exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like something from a War of the Worlds radio serial

Maybe that's the last thing anyone wants to happen. Better for all concerned if things don't get that "interesting".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.