Matt Vinyl Posted November 27, 2012 #4476 Share Posted November 27, 2012 You bring some refreshing insight to the thread. Please don't just lurk...comment as you wish. If you've chewed your way through the whole thread we want your input. Thanks you sir, appreciate the warm welcome. I think I've been lurking here for a good few years now - as I mentioned briefly elsewhere, although I've commented minimally, I feel like I know a lot of you guys just from the daily reading sessions. Regarding Rendlesham, I visited the location as a youngster whilst we were on holiday around that way. My Dad has always been keen on aviation and we were always trawled around such locations (not always with the greatest will!) when they were nearby. As an aside, he simply won't accept anything 'ET' exists - but some experiences he had whilst monitoring the airwaves via radio, not to mention the skies tested that belief a few times. But that's for another time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4477 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Just wanted to pop in and say I've finally read all 298 pages of this thread (thus far!) by getting through a few each day. I like the (generally) honest cut and thrust of well-honed debate throughout. My point of view for the majority of these cases is: "We'll probably never really know." The odds are in favour naturally, of most of them being well, something natural. But there's always the possibility, however slim, that some of these were the real deal. The Kumburgaz (I have to control myself to not chuckle at the name!) case is interesting - particularly Zoser's first pic. However, I think the video is being a tad disingenuous when it suggests that there is a visible 'alien crew member' present. Not just because they automatically assume it's alien, but that it is in-fact anything alive at all. Not once do I see any movement there (that is not directly related to the entire image moving - camera handling issues). The likely result is of course, that it's a boat facing towards the cameraman (but let's not go down the angle-of-sight debate again like with the aircraft case posed earlier. lol!) Anyway, thanks to Zoser in the main for the 'interesting' testimonies which have certainly kept me engaged over the last few weeks. I'll go back to lurking now... Edit Reason: Unintended use of banned word (was part of another non-offensive word)! Well done for wading through the thread! Your more than welcome. It would be great to hear more about your father's experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4478 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) This is Col. Charles Halt's latest interview on the Rendlesham case. He said that he would have preferred that the whole case had not been publicized, but it came out anyway. He didn't even know the complete story in 1980 nor was he told who really investigated it. Not even Lord Hill-Norton could find out that information. These UFOs were spotted over the base and on other bases in the area, as well as by several different radars. Halt doesn't really know what they were or where they came from, but he denies that the UFOs were definitely not the lighthouses. He also met Col. John Alexander who was still on active duty at the time and interviewed him about the case. The NSA was also very interested in the case and discussed it with him in detail. One of the finest and well supported cases ever. One of my personal favourites and lots of consistencies with other nuclear air base incidents. Never could this case be attributed to misidentification or hysteria. It's nice to see you back on the thread MacG. Keep em coming. Z Edited November 27, 2012 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4479 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) This is Col. Charles Halt's latest interview on the Rendlesham case. He said that he would have preferred that the whole case had not been publicized, but it came out anyway. He didn't even know the complete story in 1980 nor was he told who really investigated it. Not even Lord Hill-Norton could find out that information. These UFOs were spotted over the base and on other bases in the area, as well as by several different radars. Halt doesn't really know what they were or where they came from, but he denies that the UFOs were definitely not the lighthouses. He also met Col. John Alexander who was still on active duty at the time and interviewed him about the case. The NSA was also very interested in the case and discussed it with him in detail. Quoth Col Halt At 35:30: "The astronomer debunker who I have sat down and had a drink with must be on the payroll of someone or something, because he is adamant that I saw a lighthouse; I did see a lighthouse but I also saw something else. There's no way I'm going to convince him so let him think what he wants to think................I'm not going to debate with these people because when you have a closed mind, there's no sense talking with someone like that". Zoser sympathises with Col Halt entirely on that point. Edited November 27, 2012 by zoser 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 27, 2012 #4480 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Good to see the good Col.'s still sticking to his guns and not letting those who want to insist that he was deranged or deluded (or possibly stoned, which some have suggested) bully him. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted November 27, 2012 #4481 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Quoth Col Halt At 35:30: "The astronomer debunker who I have sat down and had a drink with must be on the payroll of someone or something, because he is adamant that I saw a lighthouse; I did see a lighthouse but I also saw something else. There's no way I'm going to convince him so let him think what he wants to think................I'm not going to debate with these people because when you have a closed mind, there's no sense talking with someone like that". Zoser sympathises with Col Halt entirely on that point. It's a classic case Zoser. The military really buried this one for a good reason...the ETH derails their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4482 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It's a classic case Zoser. The military really buried this one for a good reason...the ETH derails their agenda. Yes I agree; no power on earth could debunk this one; too many testimonies and trace evidence. Not even attributable to the black military or area 51 because of the exotic technology involved. If I had to pick a case that was best evidence of all for ET this would have to be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted November 27, 2012 #4483 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth. Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4484 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth. Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect. He's the guy that Col Halt is referring to. Nothing more than a casual expert who prefers to disregard the word of those who were present. I have seen his documentary. Nothing but wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 27, 2012 #4485 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth. Devout believers will probably never be swayed, but that doesn't mean the explanations provided by Ian are incorrect. Can you briefly outline what Mr. R may have speculated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4486 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Ian Ridpath has covered Rendlesham in extreme depth. You mean he found a nearby lighthouse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 27, 2012 #4487 Share Posted November 27, 2012 He's the guy that Col Halt is referring to. Nothing more than a casual expert who prefers to disregard the word of those who were present. I have seen his documentary. Nothing but wishful thinking. What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4488 Share Posted November 27, 2012 What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they. Yep; that's the root of his wonderful 'in depth' theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synchronomy Posted November 27, 2012 #4489 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes I agree; no power on earth could debunk this one; too many testimonies and trace evidence. Not even attributable to the black military or area 51 because of the exotic technology involved. If I had to pick a case that was best evidence of all for ET this would have to be it. Unfortunately, there are better cases, but we'll never hear about them because the military and/or black ops have been successful in covering them up. I have a family member that works for General Electric in aircraft engines. A friend of his works for them too, but in their "black-ops" division. They've been good friends for many years, but the black-ops guy won't even tell him what he has for lunch while at work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher Posted November 27, 2012 #4490 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case? No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages. Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious. I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO. If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters. They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas. Edited November 27, 2012 by Walnut Whip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4491 Share Posted November 27, 2012 We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case? No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages. Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious. I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO. If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters. They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas. Never heard that theory before; I'm doubtful because as you suggest the C-L craft spewed out lethal radiation. It would be interesting to see what you have on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 27, 2012 #4492 Share Posted November 27, 2012 We are talking about the infamous Rendlesham Forest case? No wonder it's still going strong after 300 pages. Btw Jenny Randles book about the case mentioned something curious. I'll bring up the link eventually but she suggests that the Rendlesham Forest craft and Cash/ Landrum craft are the same UFO. If your scratching your head, the eye-witnesses in the Cash-Landrum case also noticed an escort of helicopters. They also suffered horrific burns due to presumed radiation exposure. It was somewhere in Texas. The coincidence in dates is rather interesting: Rendlesham 24–25, 25–26 and 26–27 December 1980, the Texas incident December 29, 1980. Though a squadron of helicopters would hardly have escorted it across the Atlantic. Who knows, though, maybe, something curious having appeared in U.S. airspace, so soon after the goings-on at Rendlesham, they might have wondered if there was a connection and decided to take no chances, and decided to escort it off the premises, or at least to keep a close eye on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted November 27, 2012 #4493 Share Posted November 27, 2012 He's the guy that Col Halt is referring to. Nothing more than a casual expert who prefers to disregard the word of those who were present. I have seen his documentary. Nothing but wishful thinking. There is more to it than that zoser, and the "documentary" doesn't cover everything, it was really just a brief overview that he gave at an Unconvention. Can you briefly outline what Mr. R may have speculated? There is too much for a brief outline. Feel free to peruse his website if you're actually interested in understanding what he has presented. http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm You mean he found a nearby lighthouse. Much much more to it than that. What, the lighthouse? merciful heavens, people really will buy anything if they want to pour cold water on something, won't they. Much much much more to it than that. Yep; that's the root of his wonderful 'in depth' theory. Much much much much more to it than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted November 27, 2012 Author #4494 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Much much much much more to it than that. Wait a minute; are you saying that there is more to his theory than just the lighthouse? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted November 27, 2012 #4495 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Wait a minute; are you saying that there is more to his theory than just the lighthouse? Nothing slips past you zoser. Sharp as a tack! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher Posted November 27, 2012 #4496 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) The coincidence in dates is rather interesting: Rendlesham 24–25, 25–26 and 26–27 December 1980, the Texas incident December 29, 1980. Though a squadron of helicopters would hardly have escorted it across the Atlantic. Who knows, though, maybe, something curious having appeared in U.S. airspace, so soon after the goings-on at Rendlesham, they might have wondered if there was a connection and decided to take no chances, and decided to escort it off the premises, or at least to keep a close eye on it. The way these things whizz about in the sky,two days is child's play. However you could have multiple sightings and none two are the same. It would be an almighty coincidence but I'm sure I'm didnt imagine that book. Btw,Zoser I borrowed it from the library but there should be a record of it on the Internet. Edited November 27, 2012 by Walnut Whip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted November 27, 2012 #4497 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) "But I know that the first sighting coincided with the burn-up in the atmosphere of an exceptionally bright meteor, and that the airmen who saw the flashing UFO between the pine trees were looking straight at the Orford Ness lighthouse". Ah, so basically it relies on a string of coincidences, then. Stil, it's a theory that's worth considering, but I do hope people won't get as angry as often seems to happen if I don't embrace it straight away but perhaps will give it the consideration that it deserves and put it with all the various other theories that have been put forward. This seems to be an interesting aspect of all these things; people are laughed at, sneered at and mocked for jumping to the conclusion that something must be an ET craft, but if someone comes up with a Rational explanation, then the people who wear the badge of Skepticism with pride will happily accept that with open arms. I do hope that the same stringent standards are applied to these rational theories as they are to the more exotic suggestions. * Incidentally, what is the most popular Rational explanation for the Cash/Landrum affair? It's surely indisputable that there was solid evidence there. is it going to be Military Secret projects? (in this case, a remarkably un-secret one, though)? i know this is all in bold, but I rather like it. Edited November 27, 2012 by 747400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppono Astos Posted November 27, 2012 #4498 Share Posted November 27, 2012 You mean he found a nearby lighthouse. At least he recognized the lighthouse,unlike Halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonecrusher Posted November 27, 2012 #4499 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Just got the title of the book... "Sky Crash" by Jenny Randles,Brenda Butler and Dot Street. Edited November 27, 2012 by Walnut Whip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted November 27, 2012 #4500 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Quoth Col Halt At 35:30: "The astronomer debunker who I have sat down and had a drink with must be on the payroll of someone or something, because he is adamant that I saw a lighthouse; I did see a lighthouse but I also saw something else. There's no way I'm going to convince him so let him think what he wants to think................I'm not going to debate with these people because when you have a closed mind, there's no sense talking with someone like that". Zoser sympathises with Col Halt entirely on that point. Unless the lighthouse was up in the air and showing up on radar in various locations, what they saw was definitely not the lighthouse. Many times that night, UFOs were seen in opposite directions from the infamous lighthouse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now