Rendlesham Forest UFO sighting 'new evidence'

[Reilly.]

This is an incorrect statement. To leave an impact, a meteor or bigger parts of it must reach the Earth surface and thats

not always the case. Secondly, a meteor that impact into the sea, does not leave an impact.

Yes, you're right. That CAN happen. But they have records of it going down in the forest, so in this case, it DIDNT. Thus, it should have an impact or some evidence of it coming down. From burns on the tops of certain trees to an actual crater.

[Shouldthisexist]

Wait radar evidence of it landing? Or evidence like soil samples pictures etc of the landing

[psyche101]

You're thinking so small man, do you not see it.

I think you might be in for a bit of a shock, I like your confidence, however it will be short lived, like the Blues on Wednesday Night!!

Yes, we have meteors but meteors leave impacts. They leave trails. They also cannot make turns and move as if under intelligent control. Lets pretend for a minute there is no eye-witnesses. Lets just pretend that you know nothing about the case and are handed radar data showing a craft moving at thousands of miles per hour that appears to be under intelligent control, and then you can see it going down (landing in) in the woods. That's all your basing the case off. Forget everything else.

No, they do not, most meteors do not reach earth. A 'Turn" is not intelligent control, that can happen for many reasons, the most common being pressure. As the gases heat up when the bolide hits the atmosphere, it releases them violently, which can result in a change of direction. One must also consider parallax error.

Its very easy to investigate this. Something moving at that speeds which collided with the earth would leave an impact, would leave evidence. A true skeptic would be out in the woods finding the impact site... and if they di, I'd agree. I'd accept that Rendlesham was b******s.

Well then we are agreed that is the BS. Ian Ridpath did just that with local Forrester Vince Thurkettle.

LINK - Ian Ridpath.

However, if we have documented records of this and there is NO CRASH SITE and NO IMPACT than we have to consider an alternative.

The only site found consisted of rabbit holes. The ‘burn marks’ on the nearby trees were marks made by local woodsmen to denote which trees ought to be cut down. And that’s not skeptical speculation: they actually found a local fellow who said “yeah, that was me. I did that.”

[Derek Willis]

Yes, we have meteors but meteors leave impacts.

I know I am being pedantic here, but by definition meteors don't impact on the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere. When asteroids or meteoroids do impact on the earth, they are called meteorites.

[Fila]

On 12/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, psyche101 said:

You really should understand these subjects before you comment. Radio telescopes offer thermal and non thermal images. Would be great to search the local skies with. 

https://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/everyone/radio-astronomy/index.html

From your link...

"A radio telescope is simply a telescope that is designed to receive radio waves from space"

Not useful for monitoring the skies for aircraft, or even satellites.., let alone objects lower to the ground.

On 12/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, psyche101 said:

UFOlogy is pathetic

UAP research is not 

There are plenty of people researching the phenomena you are just looking in the wrong places. Real UAP researches are not associated with UFOlogy just like Hessdalen. 

Real UAP research is done by physicists meteorologists and astronomers 

I think UFO and UAP technically mean the same thing. We can discuss the meaning of the terms here if need be as the they can be relative to the individual using it. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314101-redefining-the-term-ufo/

 

I am not looking in the wrong places. The links I have provided in this thread is proof of that.., regardless of what you believe.

I asked 

You can see how pathetic the current UFO research is. You can see how there is a scientific lack of data to work with.

Can you see that because there is a lack of scientific evidence.., no one can form a conclusion? (<--- This is a question I would like answered) If someone forms a conclusion based on stories (believers) and counter stories (sceptics) they are simply not investigating properly.

On 12/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, psyche101 said:

Yes there is. Aerial Plasma research, meteorology and The Hessdalen project of the top of my head. 

All indicate that UFOS are natural phenomena. Hessdalen even records beams of light to the ground or through roofs and with the appearance of windows yet no spaceships, just terrestrial oddities. 

From my understanding, the scientists at Hessdalen cannot form a conclusion on what the objects are. Can you please provide me a link and quote where this has been established? Otherwise no.., there is no evidence to prove UFOs are ET.., and there is not enough evidence to prove UFOs are not ETs. I seem to be the only person in the entire wold who can see this..., its quite strange.

On 12/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, psyche101 said:

Who ever said that? 

Sorry, this would be a misunderstanding between us due to the terms UFO and UAP as I realised earlier. Now I know you use different terms for UFOs I'll hold back with my responses until we can sort that problem out first.., otherwise we will keep having this issue.

On 12/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, psyche101 said:

His grabs at money and his general childish statements. If you going to get difficult you can wait for me to dig up the links on this phone but I'm sure it would be quicker and easier for you to do it with a computer 

I guess you need to be spoon fed information even if someone tells you where to find it 

Its not fair if you just make wild accusations all day.., and make me fact check everything. Its simply not the correct procedure imo. If you make a claim.., you should always show your work.., and where you got this information from. 

[psyche101]

49 minutes ago, Fila said:

From your link...

"A radio telescope is simply a telescope that is designed to receive radio waves from space"

Not useful for monitoring the skies for aircraft, or even satellites.., let alone objects lower to the ground.

You should read the links

Before you can monitor space you have to identify local sources to discount them

And space would be much better in any case you do want new valuable evidence don't you? 

As I have pointed out to you, while we have tracked UFOs on RADAR they have all had terrestrial trajectories 

Not one tracked UFO has ever been recorded as coming from or leaving our atmosphere 

If you managed that you would have more proof that a UFO actually came from space than anyone ever has in history 

Repeating the well known earth trajectories of UFOs is nothing new. The closest we have ever come to receiving anything at all from Space was the WOW! Signal

Repeat the WOW! signal with a genuine UFO and it would be a groundbreaking discovery 

Quote

I think UFO and UAP technically mean the same thing. We can discuss the meaning of the terms here if need be as the they can be relative to the individual using it. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314101-redefining-the-term-ufo/

The term UFO has been largely hijacked by crackpots and UAP is more difinitive IMHO

Quote

I am not looking in the wrong places. The links I have provided in this thread is proof of that.., regardless of what you believe.

I asked 

You can see how pathetic the current UFO research is. You can see how there is a scientific lack of data to work with.

Can you see that because there is a lack of scientific evidence.., no one can form a conclusion? (<--- This is a question I would like answered) If someone forms a conclusion based on stories (believers) and counter stories (sceptics) they are simply not investigating properly.

Yes you are looking in the wrong places

You are reading how individuals and UFOligists embellish that which they cannot identify

You need to broaden your searches to include physics meteorology and astronomy 

The people you are quoting are largely just authors making a quick buck from pop culture 

Quote

From my understanding, the scientists at Hessdalen cannot form a conclusion on what the objects are. Can you please provide me a link and quote where this has been established? Otherwise no.., there is no evidence to prove UFOs are ET.., and there is not enough evidence to prove UFOs are not ETs. I seem to be the only person in the entire wold who can see this..., its quite strange.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2632650/Has-mystery-glowing-Norwegian-orbs-solved-Expert-claims-underground-battery-creates-amazing-light-show.html

https://www.introtoglobalstudies.com/2014/05/the-mystery-of-the-hessdalen-lights/

Quote

Sorry, this would be a misunderstanding between us due to the terms UFO and UAP as I realised earlier. Now I know you use different terms for UFOs I'll hold back with my responses until we can sort that problem out first.., otherwise we will keep having this issue.

UFO is supposed to mean Unidentified Flying Object 

Not alien spaceship

That part is an embellishment based on pop culture 

Quote

Its not fair if you just make wild accusations all day.., and make me fact check everything. Its simply not the correct procedure imo. If you make a claim.., you should always show your work.., and where you got this information from. 

I already did the work and posted it here at UM its not fair you make me do extra work for your personal sake from my perspective 

I told you its a pain for me to do these searches and post on a phone it would have been much easier for to do it it seems like you just didnt want the information to exist to be honest 

But I did it anyway and not so much as a thank you I noticed

Edited January 12, 2018 by psyche101

[Fila]

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

Because he was not alone, the base was populated, many staff were on duty (reference to people on the ground) 

You keep focusing on one man in charge and in touch with the entire base. But your argument is easier for you if you dismissed all the people at his disposal? 

I'm not ignoring the others. I say "people" not one individual.

 

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

The people talking over the radio said the saw twinkling lights in 5th sky and a winking light through the trees

This was embellished after the fact by two men who have conflicting accounts 

The recording of the night in question clearly is describing the meteor shower and light house. Twinkling lights in the sky and a winking light through the trees. The recording does not have sounds of machinery or propulsion of any kind. If they saw something land that would be detectable on the audio tape. 

Okay, let's get a transcript of the "recording" and you highlight which part matches the description of the lighthouse.. and which describes what a meteor looks like, because I disagree.

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

That applies to Halt and Penniston too

You keep omitting that 

The only reason I brought that up.., was because everyone was saying Halt was on drugs.., so the smae logic applies both ways. Even moreso at a party. So using the logic applied here.., I would assume the party goers were on drugs.

If anything.., not mentioning people at the party were most likely drunk.., would be ignoring something..., yea?

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

Why would two conflicting accounts be more likely than two corroborating accounts all from people in the search party? 

Especially when we also have recorded natural events which also corroborate the men who say they followed a lighthouse? 

Party goers were not on active duty. And not in the correct frame of mind. Most likely drunk and having fun.., not on guard. Most likely in a joke mood, which is dismissive of anything ordinary. Their memory of the event will not be 100% accurate. They would have been in a well lit area, looking into a dark forest.., which means their vision was poor compared to those on the ground.., who couldn't even see the other soldiers in the forest. The soldiers in the forest couldn't see the lighthouse until they walked 3 miles or so.., so how can these people speak with 100% certainty unless they were beside Halt and others on both nights.

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

Because the nomenclature is quite specific with regards to meteorology 

Fireballs describes all the rocks that fell from the sky and those which just passed through the atmosphere  

Nomenclature.., yeesh. Fireballs is a scientific term? I can't find anything to support this hey. Can you send me a link to where you got this information about the difference between "meteor, and meteorite, and meteorite fragments" and the scientific term "fireballs".

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

Yes they were focusing on local events again referring to the fireballs  they want to watch where they go because if they do not burn up before they hit the ground they are worth a fortune both from a research perspective and a monetary one. 

The meteor shower was predicted  they were ready and waiting exactly for terrestrial events 

I personally wouldn't call that a terrestrial object. Meteorites are denser than terrestrial (Earth) rocks..., but I don't want to argue that. My point is that astronomers wouldn't be able to tell you how many planes flew past in the area.., or if a helicopter flew over my house.., or if there was swamp gas or any object within out atmosphere. They would briefly see a meteor.., turn into a meteorite as it entered the atmosphere burning up, not watch it fall and see where it lands. This is accomplished by algorithms.., not visually tracking it to the ground.

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

No you have not. 

Instead if relying on dodgy links go join an astronomy forum and get some first hand experience 

I have debunked this sufficiently. If you disagree with any points raised.., feel free to bring them up here. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314527-would-an-etv-be-able-to-visit-earth-secretly/

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

Why do you refer to satellites? 

I very clearly referred to the thousands if witnesses you claim to corroborate the event

Seriously thousands of people, not one got footage to prove the claim? There should be hundreds of corroborating photos and videos at the very least 

Because you originally said "No way the entire planet missed that".... which led me to assume you meant satellites.., because the Earth is not flat. If something happens in America.., I cannot see it from Australia.

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

No it's the only conclusion one can draw from your statement 

There is no good reason at all to think anything unnatural came down from the sky that night

We have two tall tales against masses of evidence for natural phenomena both recorded and witnessed 

My statement was;

Meteorites fall almost every night. Does this mean that when a meteorite falls.., then no other events can happen? No.

Meteorites fall, but this does not match the description given by the witnesses.

Nowhere do I mention aliens or ETVs. Do not read into it anymore than the words I have typed. Its a very simple statement.

The fact that you keep saying "There is no good reason to think anything unnatural" shows your bias based on the false logic of;

UFOs cannot exist.., because its logical that UFOs don't exist. I think this is an oxymoron.

(UFOs meaning objects that are still unidentified.., not identified known objects)

On 12/01/2018 at 10:18 AM, psyche101 said:

 

It matches the official records and what the many corroborating participants reported

And it does match the descriptions on the audio recording of twinkling lights and a winking light through the trees

Where on the tape do we have people describing a spaceship setting down? 

A triangular craft, landing gear, multiple colours, flying within the treeline... This is a description of a meteorite? I don't think so hey.

Blinking through the trees.., Meteorites crash.., they don't fly through the forest treeline.

I'm not sure about the spaceship. Maybe we can get a transcript of the audio and search for the word "spaceship".

[Fila]

On 12/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

You should read the links

Before you can monitor space you have to identify local sources to discount them

And space would be much better I'm any case

As I have pointed out to you, while we have tracked UFOs on RADAR they have all had terrestrial trajectories  Not one tracked UFO has ever been recorded as coming from or leaving our atmosphere  If you managed that you would have more proof that a UFO actually came from space than anyone ever has on history 

Perhaps. But can you agree that radio telescopes are not useful for monitoring local and terrestrial objects, like planes, helicopters, swamp gas, or even satellites.

On 12/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

Yes you are looking in the wrong places You are reading how individuals and UFOligists embellish that which they cannot identify You need to broaden your searches to include physics meteorology and astronomy  The people you are quoting are largely just authors making a quick buck from pop culture 

Okay, perhaps you are correct. Can you please provide me with the sources you refer to that are conducting scientific research into UFOs. Thanks

On 12/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2632650/Has-mystery-glowing-Norwegian-orbs-solved-Expert-claims-underground-battery-creates-amazing-light-show.html

https://www.introtoglobalstudies.com/2014/05/the-mystery-of-the-hessdalen-lights/

1) Has the mystery of glowing Norwegian orbs been solved? This is a question.., not a peer-reviewed conclusion. Sorry.

2) Scientists now hypothesise it could be a valley battery (Hypothesise does not mean conclusion)

3) While Teodorani emphasized the difficulty of explaining the phenomenon, he suggested that “some of the observations can be explained by an electrochemical model for the ball-lightening phenomenon.

 4) Article suggested that the best explanation for the light’s spectrum would seem to be a cold plasma, and that the spectrum was unlikely to be the result of instrumentation errors

The claim that "all [scientific studies] indicate that UFOs are natural phenomena" is untrue. UFOs are simply that. Unexplained.

On 12/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

UFO is supposed to mean Unidentified Flying Object 

Not alien spaceship

Its in my bio sig I used to have UFO != ETV, but I don't think people understood that != is code for "not equal to".., so I re-worded it to UFO is not ETV.

On 12/01/2018 at 2:31 PM, psyche101 said:

I already did the work and posted it here at UM its not fair you make me do extra work for your personal sake from my perspective 

I told you its a pain for me to do these searches and post on a phone it would have been much easier for to do it it seems like you just didnt want the information to exist to be honest 

But I did it anyway and not so much as a thank you I noticed

I have never had 1 thank you. I just get yelled at when I don't provide a link.., so consider yourself lucky. Thank you though.

I'm not facebook savvy.I don't even have an account. I don't really want to figure out how to search for posts.., find the right guy.., and then pick what you think is incorrecdt behaviour.., as I most likely won't agree.., won't see the bad posts.., and it will be a waste of my time. It would be easier for me.., and for the conversation if you could provide this info.

Maybe just wait until you get home. Phone's can be very frustrating.

[White Unicorn]

On 7/13/2015 at 11:55 AM, Still Waters said:

New evidence has been gathered to back up claims a UFO landed near a US airbase in Suffolk, a former deputy commander has claimed.

Col Charles Halt told the BBC he saw unidentified objects at Rendlesham Forest in December 1980.

He says he now has statements from radar operators at RAF Bentwaters and nearby Wattisham airfield that an unknown object was tracked at the time.

Col Halt claimed it was seen by himself and base security staff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...uffolk-33447592

Alot of lights were seen there and most have been explained. Most of the younger military personnel went into UFO mode. It was a good cover for the older officers to encourage. The press went into UFO mode as well. 

A highly classified  craft came from high orbit to refuel during these claims and the stories continue to this day. 

But really to be fair, if you're a younger person interested in the subject and wasn't there, the myths around would lead you down the UFO rabbit hole. 

[stereologist]

There are many meteor societies around the world. Here is an example.

https://www.amsmeteors.org/

Here are definitions:

https://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-faq/#1

Here is a definition of a fireball

https://www.amsmeteors.org/fireballs/faqf/

I would hesitate to call it a scientific term.

[Erno86]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     "Colonel Charles Halt Audio Tape With Subtitles"          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

http://www.emresanli.com/video/?id=7KChGKhJ4Ro

Edited January 17, 2018 by Erno86
link work

[stereologist]

Another unintroduced video. Now watching that one.

I wonder if anyone is ever going to bother to give a reason to read a link or watch a video.

 

[stereologist]

So who is this Charles Halt? Here is a link to the wikipedia page on Halt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I._Halt

 

Here is a link to the memo he wrote plus a comment on the follow up to the memo

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/appendix.htm

Quote

 In 2010 Dr David Clarke revealed the previously undisclosed background to the Halt memo and the reaction to it at the MoD. Clarke interviewed Halt’s boss Col Conrad, the UK base commander Donald Moreland, and Simon Weeden who received the memo at the MoD UFO desk. The interviews confirm that the MoD made only a cursory investigation, not even interviewing the witnesses, and regarded the incident as of little importance. No further official report was made, or action taken, by the US or UK authorities beyond this memo. Halt has since claimed otherwise but it is clear that he was not in a position to know.

 

 

From here we learned that Halt did have a small career appearing on UFO shows

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3455947/

Here is Halt's 2010 affidavit and a discussion of the contents. For those that think the event was real it would be prudent to read the comments on the affidavit especially if you have bothered to read it yourself.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

Quote

If the purpose of this affidavit was to add credibility to the events of the Rendlesham Forest Incident, its effect is almost certain to be the opposite. It should now be clear that Col Halt’s pronouncements on the case can no longer be taken seriously, although they continue to provide entertainment value for those who wish to believe in the incredible.

 

[stereologist]

It is interesting that those present do not agree on the events. It seems this is just another case of confusion in which people came up with an idea and then continued to look for things that confirmed the situation to them. This is what leads to people making all sorts of different claims about robberies, shootings, car crashes, and even about what a poster wrote even when it is possible to go back and to look at the written material.

I have related in this forum how I was certain I witnessed a large cloud spinning on a mountain top, but later I realized it was just a lenticular. People say, "I know what I saw." I did too and got it quite wrong. Now I know why I got it wrong.

[badeskov]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Another unintroduced video. Now watching that one.

I wonder if anyone is ever going to bother to give a reason to read a link or watch a video.

 

Frankly, I don't anymore. If a video or a link to another website does not come with a description, it is not worth watching. All it does is to illustrate the posters laziness and incompetence. A poster worth his/her salt would want others to watch and thus tell other readers why said video/website would be worth spending time on. Not anymore, sadly.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited January 17, 2018 by badeskov

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 6:35 AM, stereologist said:

From here we learned that Halt did have a small career appearing on UFO shows

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3455947/

Not sure if this would classify as a career.., an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress and money. IMDB is a database for movies and tv shows, regardless of content.

Film and television is a media platform for information and education.

On 18/01/2018 at 6:35 AM, stereologist said:

Here is Halt's 2010 affidavit and a discussion of the contents. For those that think the event was real it would be prudent to read the comments on the affidavit especially if you have bothered to read it yourself.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

The human memory is not infallible. Gather in a room with your friends from high school and retell stories. You will quickly notice that everyone has different memories of the event.., however this does not mean the event never happened. This is natural.., and if anything adds realism. If he kept sticking to the same script.., that would be more suspicious imo. Especially for minor points like those mentioned.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Fila

[Merc14]

52 minutes ago, Fila said:

Not sure if this would classify as a career.., an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress and money. IMDB is a database for movies and tv shows, regardless of content.

Film and television is a media platform for information and education.

So appearing on television shows from 1991 to 2015 is a career, right, especially when he visited conventions and other UFOlogy events as a speaker in between acting gigs (google Charles Halt speaking events).   Sorry, actually 1980  I guess as that is when he first talked to the BBC.

52 minutes ago, Fila said:

The human memory is not infallible. Gather in a room with your friends from high school and retell stories. You will quickly notice that everyone has different memories of the event.., however this does not mean the event never happened. This is natural.., and if anything adds realism. If he kept sticking to the same script.., that would be more suspicious imo. Especially for minor points like those mentioned.

So you agree the 2010 affidavit is worthless then, correct?   If so then why is the radar operator's testimony worth any more than Halt's?

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

Not sure if this would classify as a career.., an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress and money. IMDB is a database for movies and tv shows, regardless of content.

Film and television is a media platform for information and education.

The human memory is not infallible. Gather in a room with your friends from high school and retell stories. You will quickly notice that everyone has different memories of the event.., however this does not mean the event never happened. This is natural.., and if anything adds realism. If he kept sticking to the same script.., that would be more suspicious imo. Especially for minor points like those mentioned.

The issue here is that some people are saying that the events Halt claims never happened.

That's a significant difference don't you think? As you say this does not mean the event never happened. What it does indicate is that the event was probably not what Halt suggests.

Examples:

1. Halt's insistence that it could not have been the lighthouse is incorrect
2. The sending down of the laser like beam is probably incorrect
3. The other airmen seeing beams is probably incorrect
4. That the US and UK did a cover up is probably incorrect

Retelling of stories leads to mistakes and can introduce false memories and embellishments.

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 10:26 AM, Merc14 said:

So appearing on television shows from 1991 to 2015 is a career, right, especially when he visited conventions and other UFOlogy events as a speaker in between acting gigs (google Charles Halt speaking events).   Sorry, actually 1980  I guess as that is when he first talked to the BBC.

Appearances on TV does not equate to a "career."  This is an attempt to make it seem like he is lying.., in order to acquire fame and fortune. However there is no backing or substance behind the assumption. Just an opinion that X amount of times on TV is equal to a career. However the true definition of a career is nothing like this.

How many times would determine it to be a career? What is a job? What is a career? How much money did he earn from this? Where is this defined? If he really did see something (albeit hallucination, but he is 100% certain and wants to inform people) then how else should he have gone about this? Write a book? Would that mean he would have a career in writing books?

On 18/01/2018 at 10:26 AM, Merc14 said:

So you agree the 2010 affidavit is worthless then, correct?   If so then why is the radar operator's testimony worth any more than Halt's?

No. If anything the differences add weight. If he repeated word for word the exact thing.., then I would be more suspicious.

Gather in a room with your friends from high school and retell stories. You will quickly notice that everyone has different memories of the event.., however this does not mean the event never happened.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 0:10 PM, stereologist said:

The issue here is that some people are saying that the events Halt claims never happened.

That's a significant difference don't you think? As you say this does not mean the event never happened. What it does indicate is that the event was probably not what Halt suggests.

Examples:

1. Halt's insistence that it could not have been the lighthouse is incorrect
2. The sending down of the laser like beam is probably incorrect
3. The other airmen seeing beams is probably incorrect
4. That the US and UK did a cover up is probably incorrect

Retelling of stories leads to mistakes and can introduce false memories and embellishments.

Probably , probably, probably. Sorry.., I can't be involved in this type of "investigative research". I require facts and hard evidence for both sides of the argument.

[Merc14]

18 minutes ago, Fila said:

Appearances on TV does not equate to a "career."  This is an attempt to make it seem like he is lying.., in order to acquire fame and fortune. However there is no backing or substance behind the assumption. Just an opinion that X amount of times on TV is equal to a career. However the true definition of a career is nothing like this.

Just going by your definition "an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress and money ".  If 1991 to 2015 doesn't equate to a substantial amount of time then please offer your definition.  Also, please include his hundreds of paid appearances at conventions and such. 

Quote

How many times would determine it to be a career? What is a job? What is a career? How much money did he earn from this? Where is this defined? If he really did see something (albeit hallucination, but he is 100% certain and wants to inform people) then how else should he have gone about this? Write a book? Would that mean he would have a career in writing books?

20 years is a career in the military.    Please define your's and feelfree tto keep adjusting to defend your already lost position, it works for me.

Quote

No. If anything the differences add weight. If he repeated word for word the exact thing.., then I would be more suspicious.

No, it would mean he remembers what he saw.  Drastically changing your testimony every time you give it is, by definition, perjury.

Quote

Gather in a room with your friends from high school and retell stories. You will quickly notice that everyone has different memories of the event.., however this does not mean the event never happened.

No, it just means you have no real recollection of what really happened and your testimony is worthless, period.

16 minutes ago, Fila said:

Probably , probably, probably. Sorry.., I can't be involved in this type of "investigative research". I require facts and hard evidence for both sides of the argument.

You started out trying for that but not any longer,  sorry.  Now you defend the absolute indefensible.  Halt swore to a story that is radically different from his original!  His word is worthless now, obviously. Does that not mean the truth is now irrelevant to his other concerns, namely making money. 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Merc14

[stereologist]

42 minutes ago, Fila said:

Probably , probably, probably. Sorry.., I can't be involved in this type of "investigative research". I require facts and hard evidence for both sides of the argument.

The damning evidence is that people directly contradict Halt. Multiple people directly contradict Halt.

That's a fact and hard evidence.

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:05 PM, Merc14 said:

Just going by your definition "an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress and money ".  If 1991 to 2015 doesn't equate to a substantial amount of time then please offer your definition.  Also, please include his hundreds of paid appearances at conventions and such. 

True.., but I don't see him progressing any higher than a UFO witness. If anything.., if he and all the others are lying just for fame and fortune.., then it would be more of a job,

He was getting paid? What the heck? Why? Can you send me a link to these events. How much do they make? (Maybe I found a new career,lol)

On 18/01/2018 at 3:05 PM, Merc14 said:

20 years is a career in the military.    Please define your's and feelfree tto keep adjusting to defend your already lost position, it works for me.

Nah that's cool. 20 is fine, thank you.

If my position is lost.., why did you exclude these questions that followed that sentence? If he really did see something (albeit hallucination, but he is 100% certain and wants to inform people) then how else should he have gone about this? Write a book? Would that mean he would have a career in writing books?

What are the rules here. Is he just meant to give one report.., then shut up? I think if I saw something like that.., I would be telling everyone too. But if the rules say no.., then I would just say it once, and never say it again.

On 18/01/2018 at 3:05 PM, Merc14 said:

No, it would mean he remembers what he saw.  Drastically changing your testimony every time you give it is, by definition, perjury.

Drastically? I dunno. When someone goes through a traumatic experience, memories are not the best. As time goes by memories fade, and become selective, other things can get added. Its pretty normal stuff, which doesn't do much to discount the 1980 sighting.

On 18/01/2018 at 3:05 PM, Merc14 said:

No, it just means you have no real recollection of what really happened and your testimony is worthless, period.

Come on man.., we are not little kids anymore. You really gonna play that card?

There's No Such Thing As a Photographic Memory.Its easy to think we remember more accurately than we do. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/ Memories fade with age. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/partial-recall-why-memory-fades/

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

And much much more....

Perhaps you have a perfect memory, in which case offer your brain to science.

On 18/01/2018 at 3:05 PM, Merc14 said:

You started out trying for that but not any longer,  sorry.  Now you defend the absolute indefensible.  Halt swore to a story that is radically different from his original!  His word is worthless now, obviously. Does that not mean the truth is now irrelevant to his other concerns, namely making money. 

Noteverytingisaconspiracy. No.., as above.

[Fila]

On 18/01/2018 at 3:43 PM, stereologist said:

The damning evidence is that people directly contradict Halt. Multiple people directly contradict Halt.

That's a fact and hard evidence.

Yea.., but if I was lying. I wouldn't try and drag you into it.., knowing I was lying.

That doesn't make sense.., no one would ever do that. But its trying to get worked in here, simply because UFOs are involved.

Its more likely due to the human brain, and how it makes mistakes, false memories etc especially when encountering new events and information, or traumatic experience. A UFO witness is still prone to human error. He may even suffer from old man disease, and can't remember stuff good, lol. Or my favourite.., he hallucinated it. And the poor guy was just reaching out for help.., and everyone attacked him, calling him a liar, and fraud.., lol

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Fila

[quillius]

giving talks at UFO conferences and such do not constitute 'he made it up for the money' as opposed to it being a by product of. That aside there is nothing I have seen to show how much he made from these appearances if anything, irrelevant of the number of years it spanned over....did Mitch Stanley conduct interviews after Phoenix?

I would also disagree that the lighthouse is confirmed as being what Halt saw. The Ridpath analysis is strongly reliant on the 5 second aspect of seeing the light which is not confirmed when you hear the recording of events as they happened.

I also questioned the lights being seen from a position prior to reaching the gate and upon reaching the gate, think Psyche should remember this conversation we had. Which again made the lighthouse theory inconclusive at best IMO. 

Now having said all that I am not suggesting it was ET I am just suggesting that Ridpaths analysis could have issues with it that would certainly not support. I do not have the time or energy to go over it all again, especially when there are some vital bits missing to decide either way. I think both sides (if we want to call each other that) can simply look at all the detail, discuss for and against.....then we are left with our own personal interpretation of events...mine led me to decide 'I do not know'.....

not that this subject drained me much back in the day hehe