Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Was the Rendlesham UFO incident a prank ?

251 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sir Wearer of Hats

It's the right time of year for "hijinks" and "shenningans" and "drunken stupidity", so yeah. why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
Posted (edited)

Would not surprise me if it were a prank..99.9% of this stuff is a prank.....Maybe thats where the Bigfooters get their prowess a pranking.

Edited by Alien Origins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Caspian Hare

Guys in the military love pranks, but this seems like a lot of work for an uncertain effect. You need to be sure they notice it and interpret it the way you intend, then return to the exact spot you left your "imprints" later.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

A prank/ a cockup on the part of those on guard duty: 'allowing activists to get in the compound'? Who knows! Who cares!?

Whatever it was it got into the media.. ufo buffs were on it like a ton of bricks= those involved got a little media attention & it all mushroomed from there...

When the case hit the scene in the mid 80's it was just a craft sighting.. As the years past suddenly there were strange markings/ aliens walking around the craft. Do they think we're stupid!?

Well they know 'some' are= hence all the book sales etc etc & the reason why this case (& the ufo subject in general) is still around= a cash cow!

IMO no aliens but tons of money earned!


This pox ridden case has to be the biggest bunch of contrived BS ever seen regarding this subject! And that's up against some pretty stiff opposition! It's pathetic.

Just saying it as I see it....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX
Posted (edited)

Gotta love when the skeptics that always harp on about evidence and proof, are easily willing to buy an absolutely retarded story by an anonymous source, just because it fits their skeptic worldview. Really tells you a thing or two about "skeptics", and their professed skepticism - it's really just a cover for their bias. 

Edited by PrisonerX
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troublehalf

Reading this... it sounds like a bit..imaginative. I state this because while 'testing' bases is a thing, I highly doubt that a group of soldiers parachuted in (and this should be verifiable via radar logs and flight plans by military aircraft) to attack an RAF base during the Cold War housing both British and American personnel... all of whom I suspect were not told about the 'defence test' and are armed with real weapons that fire actual bullets... that such a test could have gone wrong and ended up with death or serious injury. Furthermore there is a long standing rumour there were US nukes on the site. Making such a 'test' doubly likely to result in injury or death.

The 'prank' itself seems dodgy and seems highly based on the fact that investigations would take place and certain tests would be carried out. I cannot remember for certain but didn't they do a radiation test that said background radiation was much higher in the vicinity? Seems like a lot of effort to do.

I have no issue whatever the explanation, mundane or fantastical; but this doesn't seem like the choice. I also think the idea of the one of the world's best special forces having 'Special Forces.... And Pranksters' as their description. Seems like a bit of silly idea. But some of this stuff can be verified. Somebody find the logbook confirming a military aircraft parachuting troops into the area. Radar returns. Etc. Seems more like somebody got tiddly during the holidays and rang up and made something up. Perhaps there is a prank involved after all?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken
2 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

Gotta love when the skeptics that always harp on about evidence and proof, are easily willing to buy an absolutely retarded story by an anonymous source, just because it fits their skeptic worldview. Really tells you a thing or two about "skeptics", and their professed skepticism - it's really just a cover for their bias. 

That's because it's a LOGICAL explanation which fits the human understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Hawken said:

That's because it's a LOGICAL explanation which fits the human understanding.

Couldn't agree more.  But the obvious "human understanding" is what biases people to jump at a conclusion that pleases them.

We are of the frame of mind that we know it all.  Oh, well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cathya

Remote controlled kites?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Hawken said:

That's because it's a LOGICAL explanation which fits the human understanding.

Never mind the complete lack of any evidence supporting the proposition put forth in the article (and thus the inconsistency of so-called skeptics), would you consider it logical to buy such and explanation as being responsible for causing radiation sickness?

https://popularmilitary.com/air-force-veteran-awarded-full-disability-for-ufo-exposure/

Edited by PrisonerX
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken
50 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Never mind the complete lack of any evidence supporting the proposition put forth in the article (and thus the inconsistency of so-called skeptics), would you consider it logical to buy such and explanation as being responsible for causing radiation sickness?

https://popularmilitary.com/air-force-veteran-awarded-full-disability-for-ufo-exposure/

Interesting read. This reminds me of the Cash-Landrum case where the women suffered health problems after their encounter.

But to my knowledge they never received any compensation from the government because they won't acknowledge it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
7 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

Gotta love when the skeptics that always harp on about evidence and proof, are easily willing to buy an absolutely retarded story by an anonymous source, just because it fits their skeptic worldview. Really tells you a thing or two about "skeptics", and their professed skepticism - it's really just a cover for their bias. 

i'll repeat:

Quote

When the case hit the scene in the mid 80's it was just a craft sighting.. As the years past suddenly there were strange markings/ aliens walking around the craft

does the above not make you think or are you happy with that-- just out of interest

yep the good ol' skeptics, bless em;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hawken said:

Interesting read. This reminds me of the Cash-Landrum case where the women suffered health problems after their encounter.

But to my knowledge they never received any compensation from the government because they won't acknowledge it happen.

Yes, another case that these people encountered *something* that was life threatening. and no doubter can deny this.

The Piney-Woods UFO Case

"In addition, her scalp was numb and painful. All three of the victims were treated for radiation poisoning, and their condition was listed by doctors as life-threatening. Before long, skin sores developed, weight loss began, and skin cancer was diagnosed."   Betty Cash did die from her illness. 

Also interesting is the women claimed they counted 23 helicopters trying to envelope that diamond-like UFO. The kid was only 7 years old in 1980... 46 years old now. I'd love to see an interview with him.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

well that would explain the binary message in engrish, wich for me was the main issue with this story. Why would aliens use binary code to encode a basic message in english makes no sense to me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken
On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 7:13 AM, Dejarma said:

 

When the case hit the scene in the mid 80's it was just a craft sighting.. As the years past suddenly there were strange markings/ aliens walking around the craft.

Both sides are guilty of adding or changing their stories. In Roswell it went from weather balloon to a special operations balloon...Mogal.

In the Rendlesham it went from the lighthouse to now a prank from the SAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, Hawken said:

Both sides are guilty of adding or changing their stories. In Roswell it went from weather balloon to a special operations balloon...Mogal.

In the Rendlesham it went from the lighthouse to now a prank from the SAS.

No one knows what really happened at Roswell apart from those making the claim.

Skeptics will naturally try to find a normal explanation regarding an alleged encounter. Some will re-think & explanations will change over time..

When those making a claim add things over time to the story; that is a different matter= to me it's lying!

Changing explanations is not the same as changing the claim-- no doubt in order to earn more money via new material for the next book etc..

So IMO comparing the two is illogical.... all due respect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 1/1/2019 at 10:48 AM, PrisonerX said:

Gotta love when the skeptics that always harp on about evidence and proof, are easily willing to buy an absolutely retarded story by an anonymous source, just because it fits their skeptic worldview. Really tells you a thing or two about "skeptics", and their professed skepticism - it's really just a cover for their bias. 

Apparently, you have no idea what the meaning of skeptic is. 

The word is scoffer, not skeptic. 

To paraphrase you,

Gotta love when the believers pretend they have evidence and proof in the form of anecdotes, are easily willing to buy an absolutely retarded story by an anonymous source, just because it fits their believer worldview. Really tells you a thing or two about "believers", and their professed beliefs - it's really just a cover for their bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

An investigation of the radiation levels showed them to be small.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm

Quote
The subsequent release of Col. Halt’s real-time tape recording of events confirmed that the peak figure obtained was simply a random burst, not a steady level. For much of the time scarcely anything was being picked up by the geiger counter. On the tape we hear them describing the readings at the site as “minor clicks” and “three to four units”, i.e. 0.03 to 0.04 mR/h. They got these readings as they approached the site and then as they checked each of the supposed landing marks. Confirmation that this was only background radiation comes from the fact that the same levels were also recorded over half a mile away from the supposed landing site, after they had crossed two fields beyond the forest (read the transcript here).
 
The geiger counter operator, Sergeant Monroe Nevels, never wrote up a report on his findings. Inquires in 1984 by US journalist Chuck de Caro for a CNN documentary elicited the information that the Disaster Preparedness office at the air base had no records of the event at all. So Col Halt’s memo and tape are all we have to go on.
 

It should also be pointed out that the congestive heart failure due to radiation seems to be an unwarranted speculation.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/heart/depts/radiation-heart-disease-clinic

Quote

Radiation dose is measured in Grays (Gy), and a heart dose of more than 30 – 35 Gy increases the risk of cardiotoxicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken
6 hours ago, Dejarma said:

 

Changing explanations is not the same as changing the claim-- no doubt in order to earn more money via new material for the next book etc..

Before making accusations it's all for money, I would like to see links of what the accused Net Worth is.

If its really up there then it would call into suspicion that's what their goal is. If not then...:hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Before making accusations it's all for money, I would like to see links of what the accused Net Worth is.

If its really up there then it would call into suspicion that's what their goal is. If not then...:hmm:

What is implicit in the charge "he wrote the book for money" is that the information in said book is false. This is a common ploy by skeptics but it has a major flaw, as in -

"a physics professor writes a text book to make money"... Does that mean his text book is full of lies??

If one wishes to say said book was written by someone "to make money (irrelevent)" make them prove the more pertinent,,, that the book has lies in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
13 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Before making accusations it's all for money, I would like to see links of what the accused Net Worth is.

If its really up there then it would call into suspicion that's what their goal is. If not then...:hmm:

1

how am i supposed to find their Net Worth!? it's private info.... i'm referring to various books published/ TV interviews/ documentaries & the 100's of seminars/ lectures that charge a fortune to get in.... so now what:hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

"a physics professor writes a text book to make money"... Does that mean his text book is full of lies??

what a ridiculous analogy 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

what a ridiculous analogy 

LOL!  Do tell, Dejarma, why is it a ridiculous analogy?

Saying somebody wrote a book for $$$  does not mean a damm thing. Don't try to create lies out of thin air and ambiance. Show me!  

By the way, Dejarma, Cosmologist, Carl Sagan, wrote "Cosmos".   Care to apply your theory here?      <can't wait>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gostar
Posted (edited)
On 1/1/2019 at 6:52 AM, UM-Bot said:

A new theory has suggested that the incident was in fact a revenge plot orchestrated by British special forces.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/324502/was-the-rendlesham-ufo-incident-a-prank

BH6w5di.jpg

The Rendlesham Forest Incident: A Firsthand Account From The Original Whistleblower

youtube.com/watch?v=sQ12qbQ3AJU

(Arrow Number 2 is pointing in the location of "Rendlesham Forest" ........ the spaceship, resembles their cultural idioms, that is a "anglo-saxon" belt buckle.)

 

(The Year is 1980 December, (solstice precessional alignment 1980/1998/2012/2016), revelation parallel's daniel so during the same time, because, daniel's prophecy is complete), this is the point I am going to make)

The British Museum was established in 1753, largely based on the collections of the Irish physician and scientist Sir Hans Sloane. It first opened to the public on 15 January 1759, in Montagu House, on the site of the current building. Its expansion over the following two and a half centuries was largely a result of expanding British colonisation and has resulted in the creation of several branch institutions, the first being the British Museum (Natural History) – now the Natural History Museum – in 1881.

In 1973, the British Library Act 1972 detached the library department from the British Museum, but it continued to host the now separated British Library in the same Reading Room and building as the museum until 1997. The museum is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and as with all other national museums in the United Kingdom it charges no admission fee, except for loan exhibitions. wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Museum

...............

...............

(the theme is discretion of holy land, for whatever reason, an object or objects was removed from the country, and the event was an open rebuke for whatever reason................i think thats it..................speaking of which.............tanais.info/art/en/roerich156more.html..............(Nicholas Roerich, carried around this sacred box he called "lapis exillis", and, its rumored to have contained a piece of bone from the skull of edward leedskalnin)...............today museums don't really deal in remains, but they did, and, perhaps who ever remains they were, was destroyed and that prompted the incident)

Edited by gostar

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.