The Bentwaters Incident 1980

[badeskov]

plutonium (on Earth) is man-made and an .'unusual' concentration of radiation

Plutonium may be man made, but it does not have an unusual concentration of radiation (whatever that means). Get into space and radiation is all over the place.

you're just begging for a YouTube video aren't you Badeskov....

NO!

......and an Einstein quote...

I have no problem with Einstein .

Cheers,

Badeskov

[bmk1245]

[...]

......and an Einstein quote...

Does Einstein quote encompass fairies? Fairies are real. Didn't you knew about it?

[bee]

Does Einstein quote encompass fairies? Fairies are real. Didn't you knew about it?

hitting the vodka a bit hard tonight aren't we, bmk......

.

[bmk1245]

hitting the vodka a bit hard tonight aren't we, bmk......

Wrong again, pumpkin, red wine only.

[badeskov]

Wrong again, pumpkin, red wine only.

Cheers in red wine...having a glass myself now

Cheers,

Badeskov

[conspiracy buff]

There are irrefutable and unexplained facts of this Bentwaters/Rendlesham Forrest case:

An unexplained object landed in the forrest

At least 3 very credible military observers witnessed this

Indentations were left that were equidistant which is consistent with descriptions of the alleged craft

The report that Halt filed on the incident was subsequently cleaned up and heavily edited

Both Penniston and Burroughs underwent hypnotherapy and passed lie detector tests

This event happened on two consecutive nights

The bottom line is that this case has an alarming amount of evidence for it being a legit UFO event that no logical explanation has ever been given for. Debunkers will claim that it is a light house but light houses generally do not give off exploratory beams nor do they navigate through the air. That explanation is the least likely and one that debunkers have been using ever since the event occurred but these same people cannot even come close to explaining the other odd elements to this case. It is the prime example of why debunkers have no business even commenting on UFO cases because they are not willing to back up their views with study and objective diligence.

[DONTEATUS]

Vodka ! Hum ? THats the smartest thing Ive read All night ! Pour Up Bade`s !!!!!!!

[Thetruthisoutdated]

Jim changed the landing site three times now, so you still believe him right. Jim has given a completely different accounting of events back in 1980 to his boss, while having a simple sit down. The investigators asked Jim if he might have made a mistake and saw the light house, he lost his tempor. He changed the locations to two new areas so the light house could not be seen, but right after the incident and actually during it the location they were really at had a view of the lights...ok I'm done with this, the guy is full of crap, let me know when you figure it out for yourself or Jim takes a polygraph

[Space Commander Travis]

Why do you keep on so about Jim? You seem to be inordinately worried about him.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The investigators asked Jim if he might have made a mistake and saw the light house, he lost his tempor.

I'd lose my rag too if someone suggested that I mistook a lighthouse I'd have seen every night for months for a UFO.

[quillius]

not sure where you are getting your information from, but its incorrect

You claim Burroughs never mentioned an craft......however both his statement and memo to the MOD both mention 'object' and the term 'lights' seperately making a distinction.

You also claim that Penniston at first says he only saw lights then mentions a craft in later years developing the story.

again this is incorrect, his statement clearly shows he says 'object' and 'mechanical in nature' ...this is a far cry from 'just lights'. This is also confirmed by Halts memo and also confirmed by Conrad in that Penniston says he saw a craft. And drew pictures of this...not lights.

So from the first available record of the observations we have Penniston mentioning a 'craft'.......NOT just lights.

You mention in another post about looking at better documented or evidenced cases and that this ones full of BS........I ask who has filled it with BS?

Hey Truth, could you possibly answer some of the questions posed?

Jim changed the landing site three times now, so you still believe him right. Jim has given a completely different accounting of events back in 1980 to his boss, while having a simple sit down. The investigators asked Jim if he might have made a mistake and saw the light house, he lost his tempor. He changed the locations to two new areas so the light house could not be seen, but right after the incident and actually during it the location they were really at had a view of the lights...ok I'm done with this, the guy is full of crap, let me know when you figure it out for yourself or Jim takes a polygraph

rather than this constant hand waiving without backing any of it up.

so Jim has changed the site three times now has he? show us...otherwise I call BS on this statement.

simple sit down with his boss? no this is the first statemnt he gave after asking for a guarantee his career would not be affected.....the lighthouse could not be seen from the eastgate, the position all the initial statments have as the first point at which the lights were seen. The explanation is that although the lighthouse cannot be seen from here the SPs actually saw the fireball which started things off...

but as I have said already, if it was the fireball (which is claimed to have lasted 3-4 seconds) how did the others also see this once they arrived at the gate?

everyone keeps claiming BS, changing stories etc etc yet no one can answer these simple questions that blow the fireball explanation out of the water.

So come on truth lets go through this step at a time...maybe rather than just reading and accepting the 'debunk' why not delve a little deeper.

You said Penniston never mentioned a craft at first. I proved this an incorrect statement.

you said Penniston changed location, show me. Show me how the lighthouse could be seen from the first stated location.

[quillius]

Why do you keep on so about Jim? You seem to be inordinately worried about him.

stands out like a sore thumb doesnt it!

[quillius]

......has to somewhere....probably integral to it

bmk..... did you know..Bruce died recently?

ps.. I enjoyed that thread..

edit to say...thanks for sharing that Minera.....

.

I hadnt heard about Bruce passing away. thanks for letting us know Bee

may he rest in peace.

[quillius]

But what about the 'extraordinary evidence' that would be needed to satisfy the 'extraordinary claim'? This case doesn't have any of that. It barely has any evidence at all. Wouldn't it then be more prudent to look for something a little more prosaic as an answer? This is one of those cases that simply can't be answered definitively without more evidence (excluding more testimony) forthcoming. There isn't enough evidence to consider the case 'done and dusted' but there is enough to cast doubt on the alien craft angle in my opinion.

Hey S2F,

ok whilst I agree we cant really claim ET nor can we falsify it, what we can do is look at the prosaic explanations and see whether they are possible no matter how improbable. I say that the fireball/lighthouse theory is not only imporbable but its impossible. This is an advantage we have, i.e. the ability to falsify any given prosaic explanation.

It is claimed that the fireball was the cause of the initial observation of lights, then once they chased this into the forest they then began to chase the lighthouse.

I say this is impossible as an explanation because if the fireball is what the SPs were witnessing to start with then how did the others see this same light once they arrived at the gate? remembering the fireball was said to last 3-4 seconds.

this in itself IMO throws the fireball explanation out of the water.

Ian Ridpaths hole analysis is based on the premise that the fireball instigated the chase through the forest, if this is proved to be impossible where does that leave Ridpaths analysis?