Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #101 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: I assume you are referring to Penniston. Personally, I'd give him a wide birth...it's an interesting enough case and he just muddies the waters every few years (my personal opinion only). Well put, Scanner. And anyone who is a bud of Qullius is a bud of mine. Welcome in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #102 Share Posted January 8, 2019 26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: ha HA! Was it a drone?? I have one of your police spokespersons saying there was no drone! And I see one of your tabloids saying it was a UFO. uh oh. LOL Well, Dejarma, I expect to see the same level of concern, yes, but military bases aren't the same as a commercial airport. The military is not under obligation to report anything to th media. You notice in this Rendlesham case it took a FOIA to get the whole thing rolling. The bases sat on the info for a long while. And Dejarma, am I right in saying that the security was in high alert level at Rendlesham on the 2nd night? you didn't answer the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #103 Share Posted January 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: I assume you are referring to Penniston. Personally, I'd give him a wide birth...it's an interesting enough case and he just muddies the waters every few years (my personal opinion only). who hasn't muddied the waters out of all those who were allegedly involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #104 Share Posted January 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, quillius said: indeed he does. Which is what frustrates me with this case....... also as previously mentioned the original sighting by the gate: , Steffens and Burroughs were at the gate patrolling when they first saw the lights, described as red, yellow, blue, white and a large glowing light above the trees. They then call this in to Chandler who was in charge and he sent Penniston and Cabansag down there to meet the other two, when they arrived Pennsiton and Cabansag could also see the lights and the big glowing one above trees (as noted in original statements). now Psyche mentioned that this original sighting could have been a fireball and not the light house (due to colours, number of lights and that you couldnt see lighthouse), however the fireball explanation doesnt fit due to the fact astronomers are on record saying it lasted 3-4 seconds... these lights were seen....reported...then once the men were joined by others (which takes time to travel down to gate)...they could still be seen That is why the route they took makes perfect sense. If you follow the path down from the gate, turn left at the road, follow the road up for maybe 100yrds, then enter the woods, the pathway you walk takes you slightly around even further to the left, then a small clearing, then down to the right. If you are following a light that is amongst the trees that is exactly the route you would want to take - each small clearing or sparse tree area gives you great views into the next clump of trees before you proceed. It's actually a more awkward walk though, if they were following a lighthouse beam well its first point of origin would remain relatively fixed, and it would make more sense to enter the woods directly opposite east gate and track it from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #105 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dejarma said: who hasn't muddied the waters out of all those who were allegedly involved? That's the problem with witness testimony, it's not historical record, just individual interpretations. On cases like this I think things like an agreed upon route by the witnesses, an overall agreement there was lights and it's direction of play, the geography of the location, and any reports that corroborate those initial starting points, is about the only useful info...the rest is 'he said she said'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted January 8, 2019 #106 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: That is why the route they took makes perfect sense. If you follow the path down from the gate, turn left at the road, follow the road up for maybe 100yrds, then enter the woods, the pathway you walk takes you slightly around even further to the left, then a small clearing, then down to the right. If you are following a light that is amongst the trees that is exactly the route you would want to take - each small clearing or sparse tree area gives you great views into the next clump of trees before you proceed. It's actually a more awkward walk though, if they were following a lighthouse beam well its first point of origin would remain relatively fixed, and it would make more sense to enter the woods directly opposite east gate and track it from there. I had never thought about that point Sky....even after hours and hours of research into the case...I guess its an advantage having walked there (at least that's my excuse for not having thought of that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #107 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, quillius said: I had never thought about that point Sky....even after hours and hours of research into the case...I guess its an advantage having walked there (at least that's my excuse for not having thought of that) Lol...when I think of the amount of times I've dragged my wife around there back in the day, trying to imagine their mindset, well its a miracle I'm still married ... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #108 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: That's the problem with witness testimony, it's not historical record, just individual interpretations. individual interpretations?? Either an intelligently controlled vehicle of unknown origin was over nuclear warhead silos firing beams of light== or they were not!! How can something like that be misinterpreted? Maybe you'd like a go at replying to post 35 of this thread? I'd be interested in your opinion, Sir edit to add: i forgot to say you didn't answer the question which was: 'who hasn't muddied the waters out of all those who were allegedly involved'? Edited January 8, 2019 by Dejarma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #109 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dejarma said: individual interpretations?? Either an intelligently controlled vehicle of unknown origin was over nuclear warhead silos firing beams of light== or they were not!! How can something like that be misinterpreted? Maybe you'd like a go at replying to post 35 of this thread? I'd be interested in your opinion, Sir Just seen post 35, I'll give that one a miss thanks lol...I have no interest in that aspect. One thing I have learnt is when you put people in situations they can't comprehend as being a rational or mundane event then all bets are off when it comes to the further details they remember later....I'm not so much interested in what someone thinks the light may be, I just want the bare facts and I'll draw my own conclusions from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #110 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: Just seen post 35, I'll give that one a miss thanks lol...I have no interest in that aspect. One thing I have learnt is when you put people in situations they can't comprehend as being a rational or mundane event then all bets are off when it comes to the further details they remember later....I'm not so much interested in what someone thinks the light may be, I just want the bare facts and I'll draw my own conclusions from there... well yeah, of course, = it's a difficult one to answer logically, isn't it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #111 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, The Sky Scanner said: Explain? Fewer trees between East gate and the lighthouse would make the view clearer, which it did, still couldn't see a lighthouse. Plus they weren't looking in the direction of the lighthouse from east gate, because if they had been they would have walked down the path, crossed the road and entered the woods Infront of them, instead they turned left and headed in another direction. And the direction they headed was directly behind the light shields view, so they wasn't following that light when they entered the forest. I'll let you figure out how fewer trees can lead to less of a view. The simple fact is that Ian Ridpath posted a photo during daylight hours in which the lighthouse is visible. Remember the time of year in which the sightings were made. And yes they were looking in the direction of the lighthouse. I supposes you are basing your claims off of Halt's mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #112 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Good lord, the only conclusion I drew was that the lighthouse could not be the source of the light that the group saw. What's so horrible about that? You drew a conclusion that the lighthouse WAS the source of light based on what, the syncopation of the light they saw and the lighthouse?? flimsy. Well in this case, the episode happened in their own back yard and, it happened to trained military people so,,, I kinda think they knew their surroundings. No, I cribbed it from another poster. And I just asked Dejarma if this was the case. We'll see what he has to say. I'm not at all an expert on Rendelsham but like all things UFO, I have interest in it. There are question marks, no doubt. I told ya you should attack it that way. I don't know his name, Stereo. The guy that physically touched the craft. him. "the timing is the same" is not proof at all. Evidence, yes. but I think it is "outweighed" by other evidences. Your conclusion was not based on anything other than an appeal to incredulity, no facts. I based the lighthouse on more than the single fact you chose to mention. The problem here is that you are unaware of the facts of the situation. They were in Rendlesham forest, not on the base. Did they know their surroundings? Not necessarily. This is just more wishful thinking on your part. You claim "full panic mode" and now you admit that is just more of your BS. Thank you. So you have no idea who the people involved are yet you pretend so much you give them characteristics such as "full panic mode" and being aware of their surroundings. Please explain what outweighs this. I can't wait. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #113 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Why are some of you lovely people going on & on about the bloody lighthouse!? The lighthouse in question was not static: it was a lightvessel, or lightship in many positions along the coast that evening, covered in bright multicolored lights celebrating 50 years service! How is it none of you know this!? Phew- fascinating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #114 Share Posted January 8, 2019 55 minutes ago, stereologist said: I'll let you figure out how fewer trees can lead to less of a view. The simple fact is that Ian Ridpath posted a photo during daylight hours in which the lighthouse is visible. Remember the time of year in which the sightings were made. And yes they were looking in the direction of the lighthouse. I supposes you are basing your claims off of Halt's mistake. I know what picture Ian posted, but he also admitted the area in which he took it from had been cleared of trees, so he wasn't standing directly at east gate, or under the same tree density as those men were. No I'm not basing my 'claim' off of anybody's anything, I'm basing it off actually standing there myself. Your claims are based on opinions you like, not what you can prove it would seem .. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #115 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: I know what picture Ian posted, but he also admitted the area in which he took it from had been cleared of trees, so he wasn't standing directly at east gate, or under the same tree density as those men were. No I'm not basing my 'claim' off of anybody's anything, I'm basing it off actually standing there myself. Your claims are based on opinions you like, not what you can prove it would seem .. My claims are based on facts from a number of sources including Ridpath. Therefore, not opinion. I see nothing to support your claim that the area had been cleared of trees. Did you make that up or is that your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #116 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, stereologist said: My claims are based on facts from a number of sources including Ridpath. Therefore, not opinion. I see nothing to support your claim that the area had been cleared of trees. Did you make that up or is that your opinion? Really? Well then that's begs the question as to why you don't bother reading what your 'number of sources" say then... From Ian.. I took this photograph on my second visit to the forest, in 1983 November. The Orford Ness lighthouse is the bright yellow-white light at right of centre, seen between trees that were still standing at the edge of the forest, although the area in which I was standing had by then been cleared Edited January 8, 2019 by The Sky Scanner Spelling error 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #117 Share Posted January 8, 2019 20 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: Really? Well then that's begs the question as to why you don't bother reading what your 'number of sources" say then... From Ian.. I took this photograph on my second visit to the forest, in 1983 November. The Orford Ness lighthouse is the bright yellow-white light at right of centre, seen between trees that were still standing at the edge of the forest, although the area in which I was standing had by then been cleared Can you provide the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #118 Share Posted January 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: Really? Well then that's begs the question as to why you don't bother reading what your 'number of sources" say then... From Ian.. I took this photograph on my second visit to the forest, in 1983 November. The Orford Ness lighthouse is the bright yellow-white light at right of centre, seen between trees that were still standing at the edge of the forest, although the area in which I was standing had by then been cleared How nice of you to try and mislead me. Here is the complete quote without your purposeful misrepresentation. http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm Quote It was past midnight when Vince Thurkettle took us to the site of the alleged landing, and it felt spooky. The area had by now been cleared of trees as part of normal forest operations, but enough pines remained at the edge of the forest to give us a realistic idea of what the airmen saw that night Here is more information from Ridpath http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm Quote Col Halt’s view The photograph I took on that occasion has been published in various places, but at that time the trees were still in full leaf and the crop in the field had just been harvested, quite different from the situation in the dead of winter when Halt and his men chased their flashing UFO across this field. To get a better idea of what Halt might have seen, I returned to the site on 2005 April 3 in the company of fellow researcher Dave Clarke when there was less foliage around, this time armed with a digital camera, and captured the view below. The upper image is the full-frame view with the lighthouse circled; the lower one is a portion of the same frame enlarged. These photographs demonstrate once and for all that the lighthouse was not “30 degrees off to the right” as Col Halt has since claimed (see next page). He evidently mistook another light for the lighthouse – very likely the Shipwash lightship, which lay in the direction he described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #119 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Come on guys, can't we move on!? in my personal opinion there's no way trained soldiers <or anyone else for that matter> is going to think a distant light is responsible for lights seen nearby... It's ridiculous.. As far as the case in general: has anyone got anything to say about Halt's claim of the levitation of someone near the alleged light-- really, no one? i've never heard this before, have you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #120 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: Your conclusion was not based on anything other than an appeal to incredulity, no facts. I based the lighthouse on more than the single fact you chose to mention. no, my conclusion was arrived at by human testimony. I know you disagree with anything anyone says that supports a UFO sighting but I give people their just due. You have shown no facts that indicate the witnesses lied about their statements, inre, the lights. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: The problem here is that you are unaware of the facts of the situation. They were in Rendlesham forest, not on the base. Another lie. I am well aware of that fact. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: Did they know their surroundings? Not necessarily. This is just more wishful thinking on your part. Yes and it is obviously wishful thinking on your behalf to say they were unaware of their surroundings, too. Get some facts to back you up. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: You claim "full panic mode" and now you admit that is just more of your BS. Thank you. Another lie. I *never* admitted it was BS, I said I cribbed it. It could be the truth. Do you see why it is damm near impossible to get anything accomplished discussing anything with you? Anyone doing so has to keep grabbing for the flyswatter. Accomplish NOTHING. 1 hour ago, stereologist said: So you have no idea who the people involved are yet you pretend so much you give them characteristics such as "full panic mode" and being aware of their surroundings. Please explain what outweighs this. I can't wait. What frame of mind do you EXPECT them to be in?? It's clear they should be in shock and awe, to say the least. A clear to understand report was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #121 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Dejarma said: Why are some of you lovely people going on & on about the bloody lighthouse!? The lighthouse in question was not static: it was a lightvessel, or lightship in many positions along the coast that evening, covered in bright multicolored lights celebrating 50 years service! How is it none of you know this!? Phew- fascinating Well, my very goodness! A link would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #122 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Well, my very goodness! A link would be nice. you don't need me to provide a link.. have you any opinions on posts 35 & 121? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted January 8, 2019 #123 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Dejarma said: Personally, I've been debating this case for many years in places like this & there has never been one rational logical response to what I put forward in post #35 in fact, there has NEVER even been an attempt as proved in this thread- it always seems to get missed= I feel they are perfectly logical questions to ask. Maybe yourself being in the military will attempt it? Ok, I will state that yes I have pulled some pranks during my earlier years. One of these pranks put me in danger and I didn't realize until much later that I could have been shot. What was I doing you ask? Oh, running around the woods during a night time training event in a ghille suit making "bigfoot" sounds. I cracked a couple stink bombs and used some small reflector pieces for the squad using flashlights who saw "Red eyes!!! I see red eyes Sergeant!!!!". I got a good laugh but didn't realize on the back side the platoon had been accidentally given live rounds instead of blanks. If the squad leader had given the order, I mot likely would be dead. This was in 1998, so who knows what the boys were doing back in '80. Just for clarity, it was an old sergeant who put me up to it. Edited January 9, 2019 by Trelane 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted January 9, 2019 #124 Share Posted January 9, 2019 7 hours ago, Dejarma said: As I'm sure you know- Gatwick airport had a drone problem recently. Of course, health & safety was the issue for obvious reasons. As far as security is concerned: what do you nice people think would happen if the same thing occurred over an airforce base? Especially one that housed nuclear warheads... They'd shoot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 9, 2019 #125 Share Posted January 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: They'd shoot it. why didn't they attempt something like that at Rendlesham? 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