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 3
outoftheworld

Glaring flaw in the `rendlesham forest` ufo

281 posts in this topic

Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw

The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that.

If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base?

I mean it just does not make sense!

And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing

There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera

Edited by outoftheworld
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so he didn't take a picture of it. Still the evidence remains, and there was quite a bit actually. Casts were made of the landing spot, Colonel Halt had a running conversation on tape while the incidents happened. Cows at a nearby farm went berserk when the ufo was in the air and then landed, and a diary of the incident and drawing of the ufo was made by Mr. Penniston, and so on. You cannot dismiss this case simply because there is no photograph. The kicker for me was the American Commander of the base, when presented with the facts regarding this incident would give no response what so ever. Why??.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw[/media]

The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that.

If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base?

I mean it just does not make sense!

And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing

There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera

The cameras were confiscated. The cover up was intense and the witnesses apparently given the truth serum sodium pentothal.

http://books.google....iscated&f=false

The same thing at the Kecksburg UFO crash site.

A reporter and news director for the local radio station WHJB, John Murphy, arrived on the scene of the event before authorities had arrived, in response to several calls to the station from alarmed citizens. He took several photographs and conducted interviews with witnesses. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle later reported that all but one roll of the film were confiscated by military personnel. WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza described one of the pictures: "It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don't know how far away from the site he was. But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing. It's the only time I ever saw it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident

Edited by zoser
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay i can link you one of the interviews with eyewitnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dY5OlljKvw

The main eye witness of that event, claimed the ufo was on the ground for 45 minutes, and he touched it and all that.

If that was the case, he couldnt have gotten a camera? there wasnt a single camera at their base?

I mean it just does not make sense!

And apparently that is the only `holy grail ` sighting in decades, yet it makes no sense how we dont even have a SINGLE PICTURE of it, or nothing

There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera

There were three eye witness get your facts straight before you try to debunk a UFO sighting. Yes he touched it, and was able to activate the object. He was also able too write the glyphs he saw down on paper and he had no camera with him. Ever thought of that genius. The glaring flaw in your logic is mute point in not getting your facts straight before you debunk a UFO report. Haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kicker for me was the fact the Commander was seen at the sight if he thought nothing of it he wouldn't have come too the sight. I saw this on Paranormal witness and this case intrigued me

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cameras were confiscated. The cover up was intense and the witnesses apparently given the truth serum sodium pentothal.

http://books.google....iscated&f=false

The same thing at the Kecksburg UFO crash site.

A reporter and news director for the local radio station WHJB, John Murphy, arrived on the scene of the event before authorities had arrived, in response to several calls to the station from alarmed citizens. He took several photographs and conducted interviews with witnesses. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle later reported that all but one roll of the film were confiscated by military personnel. WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza described one of the pictures: "It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don't know how far away from the site he was. But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing. It's the only time I ever saw it."

http://en.wikipedia....rg_UFO_incident

Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way that even 20 years ago, if you are really in the presence of a ufo on the ground for 45 minutes, that you cant get a camera

There was no way 20 years ago if you had a camera but no film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

Quote:

Forestry Commission worker Vince Thurkettle, who lived less than a mile away, was also present at the examination of the landing site. Astronomer Ian Ridpath, who has a fantastic web site about the event (and check out this YouTube video of his original BBC report here), interviewed Thurkettle about the impressions and the reported burn marks on the surrounding trees:

He recognized them as rabbit diggings, several months old and covered with a layer of fallen pine needles... The "burn marks" on the trees were axe cuts in the bark, made by the foresters themselves as a sign that the trees were ready to be felled.

So much for the landing site.

Edited by shaddow134
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits.

Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess.

Saying, I don't like facts is ridiculous let alone your emotional argument about the statements. So your comments is mute point at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had too much to drink with friends and we never ended up as a group of witnesses to a UFO.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this??

Nothing and yet everything.

Why would the command be that desperate to administer it to the witnesses? What were they determined to hide?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten us please.... what does Sodium pentathol have to do with this??

Sodium Pentothal is a plot device used in fiction in which it has the magical power of forcing people to tell the exact truth with absolute certainty or in this fiction erase a witness's memory but not quite.

Remember, the cameras were confiscated but the tape recording wasn't. Why didn't they confiscate the tape recorder? Because that would have made a successful cover up instead of a good UFO story and we never would have heard the story. The best UFO stories always have unsuccessful cover ups!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't try to confuse them with facts. And besides, the whole story has the hallmarks of some troops who had a little too much to drink at the mess.

deny_everything_bumper_sticker-r31e002a011cf46ecac6107f7b344f766_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg

Just like the authorities tried to do.

Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here.

Gets more ridiculous every time it comes around.

Sodium Pentothal is a plot device used in fiction in which it has the magical power of forcing people to tell the exact truth with absolute certainty or in this fiction erase a witness's memory but not quite.

Remember, the cameras were confiscated but the tape recording wasn't. Why didn't they confiscate the tape recorder? Because that would have made a successful cover up instead of a good UFO story and we never would have heard the story. The best UFO stories always have unsuccessful cover ups!

Tape recorders only reveal what was said. Not what was seen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah,the famous marks at the alleged landing site,the ones identified by a local forestry worker as old diggings of Rabbits.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

Quote:

Forestry Commission worker Vince Thurkettle, who lived less than a mile away, was also present at the examination of the landing site. Astronomer Ian Ridpath, who has a fantastic web site about the event (and check out this YouTube video of his original BBC report here), interviewed Thurkettle about the impressions and the reported burn marks on the surrounding trees:

He recognized them as rabbit diggings, several months old and covered with a layer of fallen pine needles... The "burn marks" on the trees were axe cuts in the bark, made by the foresters themselves as a sign that the trees were ready to be felled.

So much for the landing site.

Ian Ridpath with the light house hypothesis.

The_Flying_Lighthouse_by_Mollerup.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here.

You mean the accepted explanation? No we won't bother to go through that again.

Tape recorders only reveal what was said. Not what was seen.

Yeah, that's why President Nixon didn't mind releasing tape recordings during the Watergate cover up -- tape recordings never prove anything. In other words, you might want to learn what a "cover up" is before you start claiming one, Mr Z.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next we will be discussing lighthouse misidentifications here.

Gets more ridiculous every time it comes around.

You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door?

Quite. Also how does it account for Penniston's testimony that he touched the craft and sketched the markings on it?

UFO%20Symbols.jpg

UFO%20Sketch.jpg

Edited by zoser
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier, the top U.S. Commander of the base was asked to comment about this incident, but he declined. I ask again, WHY????

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that an air force base had no clue there was a lighthouse next door?

That was a riddcluos argument yeah like the officers don't know that a light house is, near by lmao

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a riddcluos argument yeah like the officers don't know that a light house is, near by lmao

It's a tactic that skeptics (not UM skeptics of course) use; they propose the most incredibly banal explanations and try and make out that even the most astute observer could easily be fooled.

Venus, the Moon, swamp gas..........it's just a tactic; nothing that any serious researcher would take seriously.

Edited by zoser
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that even, I couldn't be fooled by a light house that I knew about because that would be my first thought until the animals started acting up.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey to the person who mentioned about me `debunking anything`.. i am not a skeptic i am a believer...

But i am just dis-enchanted with the fact that, for all the hear say and reports and testimonies (as reputable as they may be).. there is zero/ zilch in terms of physical evidence

zero.. zilch,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess maybe your explanation of what you consider to be evidence, may be different from mine, as I will speak for myself here and say there was lots of evidence, but as I have pointed out before, you can either choose to accept the evidence presented or not to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey to the person who mentioned about me `debunking anything`.. i am not a skeptic i am a believer...

But i am just dis-enchanted with the fact that, for all the hear say and reports and testimonies (as reputable as they may be).. there is zero/ zilch in terms of physical evidence

zero.. zilch,,,

Your idea of no evidence is ridiculous since their were ton of evidence collected at the scene. Also Skepticism is alright but to deny evidence collected is not skepticism that denying truth and reality. Evidence and truth are my life so please stop it with saying your a believer since your acting more like a pull a theory out of my ass skeptic.

2 people like this

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.