Trelane Posted January 8, 2019 #76 Share Posted January 8, 2019 5 hours ago, Guyver said: Since I have been in the military myself.....I view military officers as people who have credibility. Indeed, most officers follow protocols and follow regulations. That's why Halt's direct involvement and subsequent actions make me question him individually. Granted there are always exceptions and most end up in prison for those actions. Halt's case is curious due to the severity in which he apparently deviated from policy and procedures. All of which when explained with a shrug and "I dunno" or "Maybe he felt like it" just does not wash with me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyver Posted January 8, 2019 #77 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 hours ago, Dejarma said: where have i claimed something? In the post I quoted. It seemed you were downplaying the significance of the event by claiming the story changed over time. At the beginning, you claimed it was reported as just a sighting. Did I misunderstand what you implied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted January 8, 2019 #78 Share Posted January 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, tmx3 said: Prank or not, with the number of UFO sightings and the fact alone that the gov tries to keep these cases secret, there’s reason to believe UFO’s are legit/not fabricated. When you state UFO, do you mean an alien craft or man made? The government keeps cases of secret military projects going awry secret frequently as part of procedures developed for decades. It's how you maintain an edge against adversaries. These circumstances and events have nothing to do with extraterrestrial vehicles. Can you provide information how the government may have tried covering this specific event up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyver Posted January 8, 2019 #79 Share Posted January 8, 2019 41 minutes ago, Trelane said: Indeed, most officers follow protocols and follow regulations. That's why Halt's direct involvement and subsequent actions make me question him individually. Granted there are always exceptions and most end up in prison for those actions. Halt's case is curious due to the severity in which he apparently deviated from policy and procedures. All of which when explained with a shrug and "I dunno" or "Maybe he felt like it" just does not wash with me. Ok, you’re entitled to your opinion. Maybe I don’t understand what protocols you think he violated. I don’t personally see why Halts actions should be questioned. It was late at night, he was on duty, and a fricken UFO was observed and reported right by the base. It seems the kind of thing he would be personally and professionally be interested in investigating to me. The fact that he would put his reputation and potentially his career on the line to report his experience gives him more credibility in my eyes. If I were in his shoes, I too would be compelled to report the incident factually, even though it would be tempting to not report it because of the stigma associated with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyver Posted January 8, 2019 #80 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Anyway, to offer my opinion on the OP question. I’d say that it’s a pretty sketchy move to prank a high security military installation, and I’d be comfortable ruling out the military as a source for the prank. If someone had the skill to pull off the prank as the incident has been reported in that year....then they were highly skilled and highly funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #81 Share Posted January 8, 2019 10 hours ago, stereologist said: Earl.Of.Trumps would like to dismiss the lighthouse idea without consideration. Probably because the facts sting. The audio tape has recordings where the repeated light in the forest is stated to appear and there it is again, and again. The audio tape reports the light repeating itself at the same rate as the lighthouse light. The lighthouse matches up very well. This is a curiosity on more than one level. First, you surely do not believe they were up close with and touched that alleged UFO, right? Ok, so you would have to conclude that they lied. So why not say they lied about the lights, too? What you are doing is trying to justify the existence of the light by using the lighthouse explanation. Just seems strange to me. If one listens to their testimony where they say the saw the bright light in the forest and it shined down to the forest floor, etc. Well, that just can't be a dim, off in the distance lighthouse light. So here, you could say they lied, but you try to make it appear they were telling the truth, they were just confused. I don't know why. Well, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #82 Share Posted January 8, 2019 10 hours ago, Guyver said: In the post I quoted. It seemed you were downplaying the significance of the event by claiming the story changed over time. At the beginning, you claimed it was reported as just a sighting. Did I misunderstand what you implied? it's not a claim, it's a fact= a fact you can look into yourself if you can be bothered- something i feel no need to help you with via a link or whatever- have fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted January 8, 2019 #83 Share Posted January 8, 2019 11 hours ago, Guyver said: Ok, you’re entitled to your opinion. Maybe I don’t understand what protocols you think he violated. I don’t personally see why Halts actions should be questioned. It was late at night, he was on duty, and a fricken UFO was observed and reported right by the base. It seems the kind of thing he would be personally and professionally be interested in investigating to me. The fact that he would put his reputation and potentially his career on the line to report his experience gives him more credibility in my eyes. If I were in his shoes, I too would be compelled to report the incident factually, even though it would be tempting to not report it because of the stigma associated with it. I'm not trying to argue with you. I have no insight into your career in the military and by no means am I questioning it. I'm only asking questions based off of my career and experience. It was late at night and he most certainly was not on duty so to speak. As the DBC during holiday exodus he was primarily responsible for the installation itself. He made a deliberate decision to go out on a patrol which , as I'm learning was irregular due to the base boundaries and perimeter. There was no ownership of the area the patrol was operating in and the fact that he did not coordinate with local authorities as is procedure is also highly irregular. Compounding this with the a recording he took and did not disclose to his superior officer. He drafted a memo which was not vetted and released by his installation public affairs or intelligence officers is also a large deviation from protocol. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted January 8, 2019 #84 Share Posted January 8, 2019 11 hours ago, tmx3 said: Watch the documentary "UNACKNOWLEDGED: An Expose of the World's Greatest Secret" on Netflix. If I was any good at uncovering material from the deep web, I'd hand you some of that too. Yeah I watched that. Not really that great. Steven Greer is just the absolute worst. I suggest you do some research into that person and some of the ridiculousness and underhanded practices he's been involved in. Back to my question though, obviously there was no intent for the military or government to try and cover up any part of the reported event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #85 Share Posted January 8, 2019 12 hours ago, Guyver said: Anyway, to offer my opinion on the OP question. I’d say that it’s a pretty sketchy move to prank a high security military installation, and I’d be comfortable ruling out the military as a source for the prank. If someone had the skill to pull off the prank as the incident has been reported in that year....then they were highly skilled and highly funded. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #86 Share Posted January 8, 2019 7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: This is a curiosity on more than one level. First, you surely do not believe they were up close with and touched that alleged UFO, right? Ok, so you would have to conclude that they lied. So why not say they lied about the lights, too? What you are doing is trying to justify the existence of the light by using the lighthouse explanation. Just seems strange to me. If one listens to their testimony where they say the saw the bright light in the forest and it shined down to the forest floor, etc. Well, that just can't be a dim, off in the distance lighthouse light. So here, you could say they lied, but you try to make it appear they were telling the truth, they were just confused. I don't know why. Well, whatever. The best stories are those with a good amount of truth to them. The simple fact is that the stories changed over time including touching something. So who are you suggesting lied? Can you replace this vague they with names? Again you misrepresent the situation. Here is the misrepresentation "that just can't be a dim, off in the distance lighthouse light". It is so easy pick out your attempts at misrepresenting the situation. The lighthouse was visible to them. It was not in the location they were accustomed to. The light had exactly the same frequency as the light they suggested was something special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #87 Share Posted January 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, stereologist said: The best stories are those with a good amount of truth to them. The simple fact is that the stories changed over time including touching something. So who are you suggesting lied? Can you replace this vague they with names? Again you misrepresent the situation. Here is the misrepresentation "that just can't be a dim, off in the distance lighthouse light". It is so easy pick out your attempts at misrepresenting the situation. The lighthouse was visible to them. It was not in the location they were accustomed to. The light had exactly the same frequency as the light they suggested was something special. The light wasn't visible to them as you leave the base, I've stood at that entrance and you can't see the lighthouse. The light from the lighthouse didn't reach the woods they entered opposite the entrance as the backshield prevented that. When they left eastgate they turned left and entered the woods from there, turning left is away from the lighthouse. The lighthouse only becomes visible once you arced round in the woods and head right back past the entrance and onwards towards the famers field. Just my 2 penneth worth... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted January 8, 2019 #88 Share Posted January 8, 2019 47 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: The light wasn't visible to them as you leave the base, I've stood at that entrance and you can't see the lighthouse. The light from the lighthouse didn't reach the woods they entered opposite the entrance as the backshield prevented that. When they left eastgate they turned left and entered the woods from there, turning left is away from the lighthouse. The lighthouse only becomes visible once you arced round in the woods and head right back past the entrance and onwards towards the famers field. Just my 2 penneth worth... hey Sky, hope all is well....been a while buddy..... thought id throw in an additional 2 pennies worth...... from memory, during a discussion with Psyche I also seem to remember the men waited at the gate and could see the light yet from this position (even with Ridpaths analysis) the lighthouse light was not visible.... and whilst Stereo quotes the 'repeated' flashing light sequence' being with that of the light house, I would add that this conclusion is drawn simply by two points/flashes 'there it is again.....there it is'... and we are also reliant upon the time taken to see it and say it for the audio tape....for me its a little weak to draw said conclusion.....but I guess that's a personal preference. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #89 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, stereologist said: The best stories are those with a good amount of truth to them. The simple fact is that the stories changed over time including touching something. This, I don't that doubt at all. But if their version of events with this "light" is to be that grain of truth you do believe, then you have problems. Something unusual happened. That light was not supplied by the lighthouse. You have to understand, the only time that the men of this base went into full panic mode over the "lights" was on those two nights, yet the lighthouse was there every night before and after the two nights. So that demonstrates that the lighthouse is not the answer to the "lights". Also, when they say the light shone down to the ground and they could see where the light eminated from (above) that too, defeats the lighthouse as the source. Still want to believe them? Also, as I understand it, the base was in high alert mode. And again, why high alert mode on those nights for lights that are there every night? See what I'm getting at now? you are best off just kissing their testimony of the lights off as a fabrication. You actually have reason to, IMO. Not saying you are right or wrong, just saying that this time, you do have just cause to say "liar". Just MO. Quote So who are you suggesting lied? Can you replace this vague they with names? I am very unsure about the testimony of the binary code being transmitted to the soldier that touched the craft. Very hard to grasp "why" that would be done. Especially when it lead nowhere. WHat did they get, some ubiquitous coordinates that pointed to Atlantis??? HUH???? Quote Again you misrepresent the situation. Here is the misrepresentation "that just can't be a dim, off in the distance lighthouse light". It is so easy pick out your attempts at misrepresenting the situation. The lighthouse was visible to them. It was not in the location they were accustomed to. It looks like below that the Sky Scanner and Quillius know a lot more about the location than I do. I'll watch you address their issues. Quote The light had exactly the same frequency as the light they suggested was something special. Oh. Well, maybe the UFO was feeding off of the power of the lighthouse light But seriously, maybe the UFO was "lying low" when the lighthouse light passed and resumed operation after it had gone by. But in the end, I can't really say. But this is a weak evidence, IMO. Worthy of mention but - meh. Edited January 8, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #90 Share Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, quillius said: hey Sky, hope all is well....been a while buddy..... thought id throw in an additional 2 pennies worth...... from memory, during a discussion with Psyche I also seem to remember the men waited at the gate and could see the light yet from this position (even with Ridpaths analysis) the lighthouse light was not visible.... and whilst Stereo quotes the 'repeated' flashing light sequence' being with that of the light house, I would add that this conclusion is drawn simply by two points/flashes 'there it is again.....there it is'... and we are also reliant upon the time taken to see it and say it for the audio tape....for me its a little weak to draw said conclusion.....but I guess that's a personal preference. Hey Quillius - good to see you mate, all is well with me....I trust the same for you? Yes that's right. Even after the hurricane in the late eighties and subsequent tree lose and regrowth there was no way you could see the lighthouse, elevation also played a part in making it impossible to see. I agree with your doubts on the flashing sequence, or at least your queries about it. Edited January 8, 2019 by The Sky Scanner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted January 8, 2019 #91 Share Posted January 8, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #92 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, The Sky Scanner said: The light wasn't visible to them as you leave the base, I've stood at that entrance and you can't see the lighthouse. The light from the lighthouse didn't reach the woods they entered opposite the entrance as the backshield prevented that. When they left eastgate they turned left and entered the woods from there, turning left is away from the lighthouse. The lighthouse only becomes visible once you arced round in the woods and head right back past the entrance and onwards towards the famers field. Just my 2 penneth worth... I used to be able to see the distant power lines from my house. Today I cannot because the forests have changed. Forests are not static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #93 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, stereologist said: I used to be able to see the distant power lines from my house. Today I cannot because the forests have changed. Forests are not static. Exactly, there was far fewer trees when I visited, still not visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #94 Share Posted January 8, 2019 29 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: This, I don't that doubt at all. But if their version of events with this "light" is to be that grain of truth you do believe, then you have problems. Something unusual happened. That light was not supplied by the lighthouse. You have to understand, the only time that the men of this base went into full panic mode over the "lights" was on those two nights, yet the lighthouse was there every night before and after the two nights. So that demonstrates that the lighthouse is not the answer to the "lights". Also, when they say the light shone down to the ground and they could see where the light eminated from (above) that too, defeats the lighthouse as the source. Still want to believe them? Also, as I understand it, the base was in high alert mode. And again, why high alert mode on those nights for lights that are there every night? See what I'm getting at now? you are best off just kissing their testimony of the lights off as a fabrication. You actually have reason to, IMO. Not saying you are right or wrong, just saying that this time, you do have just cause to say "liar". Just MO. I am very unsure about the testimony of the binary code being transmitted to the soldier that touched the craft. Very hard to grasp "why" that would be done. Especially when it lead nowhere. WHat did they get, some ubiquitous coordinates that pointed to Atlantis??? HUH???? It looks like below that the Sky Scanner and Quillius know a lot more about the location than I do. I'll watch you address their issues. Oh. Well, maybe the UFO was feeding off of the power of the lighthouse light But seriously, maybe the UFO was "lying low" when the lighthouse light passed and resumed operation after it had gone by. But in the end, I can't really say. But this is a weak evidence, IMO. Worthy of mention but - meh. It does not follow. You say something unusual happened. Maybe, maybe not. Then you draw a conclusion from nothing. You suggest that people are cognizant of their surroundings. Not always. You claim "full panic mode". Is that the case or is this just you making things up - AGAIN! The more I hear of this story, the more I think that nothing happened out there and it is made up. I asked if you could name the people involved and you went off the deep end with a mention of Atlantis. You apparently, don't know which people you are referring to. I suppose you made something up - AGAIN! The timing is the same. The audio tape demonstrates that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted January 8, 2019 #95 Share Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said: Exactly, there was far fewer trees when I visited, still not visible. Fewer trees? I have fewer trees and that caused the loss of the view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #96 Share Posted January 8, 2019 13 minutes ago, Dejarma said: As I'm sure you know- Gatwick airport had a drone problem recently. 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 13 minutes ago, Dejarma said: 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... 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #97 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, stereologist said: Fewer trees? I have fewer trees and that caused the loss of the view. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted January 8, 2019 #98 Share Posted January 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: It does not follow. You say something unusual happened. Maybe, maybe not. Then you draw a conclusion from nothing. 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. 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: You suggest that people are cognizant of their surroundings. Not always. 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. 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: You claim "full panic mode". Is that the case or is this just you making things up - AGAIN! 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. 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: The more I hear of this story, the more I think that nothing happened out there and it is made up. I told ya you should attack it that way. 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: I asked if you could name the people involved and you went off the deep end with a mention of Atlantis. You apparently, don't know which people you are referring to. I suppose you made something up - AGAIN! I don't know his name, Stereo. The guy that physically touched the craft. him. 6 minutes ago, stereologist said: The timing is the same. The audio tape demonstrates that to be the case. "the timing is the same" is not proof at all. Evidence, yes. but I think it is "outweighed" by other evidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sky Scanner Posted January 8, 2019 #99 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: I don't know his name, Stereo. The guy that physically touched the craft. him. 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). 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted January 8, 2019 #100 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 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). 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 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