US serviceman opens up about Rendlesham

[timacheson]

The full interview released last week -- Rendlesham Forest UFO witness reportedly received antimatter equation:

https://theanalysis.net/2019/07/24/exclusive-new-interview-with-a-rendlesham-forest-ufo-witness/

[skliss]

22 hours ago, stereologist said:

Have you considered starting a new thread?

I know there have been reports and that is all there is despite as you say "for thousands of years." Really makes it look like something imaginary when there is no evidence after "thousands of years."

Maybe a new thread in a different forum would be appropriate.

You're right...off topic. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by skliss

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, timacheson said:

The full interview released last week -- Rendlesham Forest UFO witness reportedly received antimatter equation:

https://theanalysis.net/2019/07/24/exclusive-new-interview-with-a-rendlesham-forest-ufo-witness/

lazar, this cat, george adamski, countless others make claims that "aliens" gave them technology far beyond our current technology and every time it goes nowhere, they dont apply this new gift of technology they never explain it in any functional details just vauge babblings about anti matter this secret element that.

 

 

 

[Hazzard]

16 hours ago, the13bats said:

lazar, this cat, george adamski, countless others make claims that "aliens" gave them technology far beyond our current technology and every time it goes nowhere, they dont apply this new gift of technology they never explain it in any functional details just vauge babblings about anti matter this secret element that.

From Wiki: Snake oil is an expression that originally referred to fraudulent health products or unproven medicine but has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is himself or herself a fraud, quack, charlatan, and the like.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

From Wiki: Snake oil is an expression that originally referred to fraudulent health products or unproven medicine but has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is himself or herself a fraud, quack, charlatan, and the like.

This is true, however, after getting on the net and sites like this there are types who appear as snake oil vendors but arent trying to get $$$ they seem to just want attention and validation, ( i guess those are the last reasons after $$$ to share a tale ).

They will only accept paranormal otherworldly explainations and get angry if asked for evidence and proof going ad hominem and spewing empty excuses, i used to think they knew they were full of bull but know i realize some do believe their own rubbish and suffer from mental issues.

Very few are the types who can leave it at prosiac or even unexplained, i dont like "unexplained" but in some cases its all we can get to with the information provided.

I have no idea where the threads new Rendlesham player fits in, but for me extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

[Hazzard]

13 minutes ago, the13bats said:

They will only accept paranormal otherworldly explainations and get angry if asked for evidence and proof going ad hominem and spewing empty excuses, i used to think they knew they were full of bull but know i realize some do believe their own rubbish and suffer from mental issues.

To me this is as interesting as the UFO phenomenon itself. The psychology behind why people need to believe so badly that they are willing to suspend their critical thinking and logical reasoning.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

To me this is as interesting as the UFO phenomenon itself. The psychology behind why people need to believe so badly that they are willing to suspend their critical thinking and logical reasoning.

I didn’t need to believe. I didn’t care about it at all. It forced itself into my life. 

Though I do understand what you mean

Edited August 4, 2019 by preacherman76

[the13bats]

57 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I didn’t need to believe. I didn’t care about it at all. It forced itself into my life. 

Though I do understand what you mean

And your evidence and proof is what?

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

And your evidence and proof is what?

All I have is my story. I’ve never had any sign of mental illness. I am not known as a liar or hoaxer. And three other people were there that night in complete agreement over what we saw. 

I understand that doesn’t do anything for you, but it happened none the less. You are free to believe whatever you want about it, but the existence of flying saucers are real. Anyone who believes otherwise is wrong, and that is a fact. 

Now go ahead and press your little laughing face. Cause I honestly don’t care what you find funny on this subject. 

[the13bats]

14 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

All I have is my story. I’ve never had any sign of mental illness. I am not known as a liar or hoaxer. And three other people were there that night in complete agreement over what we saw. 

I understand that doesn’t do anything for you, but it happened none the less. You are free to believe whatever you want about it, but the existence of flying saucers are real. Anyone who believes otherwise is wrong, and that is a fact. 

Now go ahead and press your little laughing face. Cause I honestly don’t care what you find funny on this subject. 

nope, thats only your biased, and delusional opinion based on what you claim you saw.

i find your close mindedness very funny

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 8/2/2019 at 12:09 AM, stereologist said:

What you are failing to provide is evidence that the visual matched the radar and matched the photos.

That is because we are NOT in a 1952 Washington DC thread. You asked for an example, I gave it. I'm not spending much time naming the incident.

now, you move the goal posts and say that what I picked out does not count because of NEW rules that you just developed on-the-fly.

On 8/2/2019 at 12:09 AM, stereologist said:

Here is your typical fabrication: "all of them reported the same thing."

Here is your original claim:

Please provide an example. The example you gave fails to do that.

Tyr it again.

Originally, I made the statement that there are three ways to observe an object in the sky, eyewitness, photo and radar, and then I said that there have been UFO sightings with all three in play and nobody in here believed any of those results at that time

You then asked for one such incident.

I provided the incident. 1952 Washington DC.  The objective has been obtained. 
You have no right to change the parameters of what task I had simply because I accomplished the task. 

The answer is Washington DC, 1952.  Another one is Dyatlov Pass, Siberia, USSR, 1959. Another is the Belgium UFO wave.

Done.

[preacherman76]

12 minutes ago, the13bats said:

nope, thats only your biased, and delusional opinion based on what you claim you saw.

i find your close mindedness very funny

Biased? Don’t pretend you know me. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 8/2/2019 at 2:47 AM, ChrLzs said:

Can you post a picture of that one, Earl?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sorry, it's an in-joke.. Earl already posted a pic - just ignore all the blue lines..)

from https://www.blueblurrylines.com/2014/12/photo-fakery-washington-dc-flying.html

If you wish to believe that somebody drawing blue lines on a photo and moving his lips up and down actually proves 9 cases of lens flare, good for you! It's really a bunch of BS. 

Firstly, light traveling to the rock and reflecting, does so in a multi directional fashion, not just where someone draws a line into the sky.  So when the rays go into the sky, we should see a sky filled with lens flares, according to your debunker, but we don't. Also, There is no way to know the exact angle the rock will make the light reflect, anyway. how can he justify drawing lines of any kind?  The whole debunking here is a farce. 

The most important reasons why your debunker's theory is bunk, is 1) the light has lost much intensity traveling that far, and 2) there is nothing in the sky for the light to strike and reflect off, causing lens flare. The theory is bunk
-----------------------------

But you missed the  point. I posted and example of a UFO incident that has all three ways of detecting objects in the sky in play. I succeeded.
I also listed many of the hard core evidences of that incident and you just blow them off, naturally! You think that if you show just ONE fake photo that you proved that no UFOs were in Washington on those 6 dates. nice try. (actually, it's not a "nice" try)

Now, if you want to address the evidences that I actually listed and that you carefully sidestepped, go right ahead.

PS: I remember the Eagle thread way back. You were in it. You made a bodacious claim at one point, saying like, it was nice to see the evidences were all being shredded!! - in your absence because you were busy at Christmas season. I was too, but I posted back - show me how these evidences got shredded. And listed some specific evidences. here's one,

A pilot said to the media, "They must know when I am running out of fuel because when I am ready to head back to base, they reappear"

Go ahead, chrlzs, "shred it".

Another pilot said to the ATC "They're closing in on me. Advise" - as reported by the spokesperson of the USAF, who sat  in ATC room.

Go ahead, chrlzs, "shred it".

Want another...? Ok, one last one.  Three radar stations recorded the "sighting" of many UFOs on 6 dates, their data all matched. The Air Force tested the radars they had and found them to be in working order.

Go ahead, chrlzs, "shred it".

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

nope, thats only your biased, and delusional opinion based on what you claim you saw.

You have no way to know if  his sighting is opinion. And "delusional"...?   why so inflammatory?  Did he offend you in any way?

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

i find your close mindedness very funny

it's totally close minded to reject a witnesses statement out-of-hand. Do you have any evidence?

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If you wish to believe that somebody drawing blue lines on a photo and moving his lips up and down actually proves 9 cases of lens flare, good for you! It's really a bunch of BS. 

I just cropped out the bulldung - is there anyone else who doesn't get what inverted lens flares look like, and why they 'mirror' around the optical centre of the lens?  I'll happily address anyone who is interested and capable of learning.  That's not you, Earl.

[ChrLzs]

From https://giphy.com/gifs/headlights-night-drive-car-at-iqsUJEAj4EcmTfeL1l

Photographers understand these mirrored flares.  If you turn that image above upside down, ie headlights below the centre of frame, and then imagine what it would look like with some more lights... (exactly like all those spotlights that are the light sources in the Washington image....)

Any questions?

It's not rocket science, but Earl will continue to deny it as it doesn't fit his world view.  And perhaps has never used a camera at night - after all, it's scary to go out after dark...

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Biased? Don’t pretend you know me. 

 

i have come to my conclusions about you from the things you post.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You have no way to know if  his sighting is opinion. And "delusional"...?   why so inflammatory?  Did he offend you in any way?

it's totally close minded to reject a witnesses statement out-of-hand. Do you have any evidence?

how he comes off speaks volumes to me, it killed his credibility and integrity eith me  if you like to have blind faith belief in stories with zero proof more power to you.

[ChrLzs]

Oh, the delicious irony......

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You have no way to know if  his sighting is opinion.

Correct.  Nor do you.  And why do you think that 'opinion' is the only explanation for a misidentification?  That's very close-minded of you.

Quote

it's totally close minded to reject a witnesses statement out-of-hand. Do you have any evidence?

Bwahahahahahah!!!  Apparently evidence is important to you now, is it Earl?  It's always been important to us, and I have to point out the elephant in the room - YOU and others are making the claims, so YOU and they need to supply the evidence - it is completely and utterly daft hypocrisy to demand others prove YOUR claims incorrect. 

There is NO EVIDENCE of them being correct identifications.  If a sighting was genuinely corroborated by completely separate/disparate witnesses, then a scientist (or lawyer, if this was a legal issue) might become interested...  but even that does not seem to apply - we are merely assured that there is corroboration...

I'm sorry, but no, that isn't even close to 'enough' - it's still one story from one person.  And we already know that culturally, people like telling such stories, and there are a multitude of potential explanations.  The claimant may well trust their memories absolutely, and those memories may well be 100% 'real'.  As in real to his mind.  That does not mean 'real' to everyone else.

Edited August 5, 2019 by ChrLzs

[preacherman76]

42 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh, the delicious irony......

Correct.  Nor do you.  And why do you think that 'opinion' is the only explanation for a misidentification?  

How do 4 people misidentify what was clearly a flying saucer that few just above them for a half hour? That at one point came so close to them that they became nervous? I nearly ran. 

I know we have had this conversation before, but if you had been there that night I have no doubt in my mind you’d be speaking in defense of flying saucers right now. I’d bet the life of my first born son on it. 

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

how he comes off speaks volumes to me, it killed his credibility and integrity eith me  if you like to have blind faith belief in stories with zero proof more power to you.

How I come off? I spoke the way I did because of the incredible smugness and arrogance you folks speak with regarding anyone who claims to have seen something like I have. 

Funniest part is, you are flat out wrong, at least in my case. I’m certain in many others as well. 

Believe what you want. It doesn’t really matter to me. Maybe you don’t always have to be such a jerk about it though. 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

How I come off? I spoke the way I did because of the incredible smugness and arrogance you folks speak with regarding anyone who claims to have seen something like I have. 

Funniest part is, you are flat out wrong, at least in my case. I’m certain in many others as well. 

Believe what you want. It doesn’t really matter to me. Maybe you don’t always have to be such a jerk about it though. 

You keep coming at me obviously it matters a great deal to you and you are deeply upset over it.

I am not at all wrong in your case, i said you have zero evidence or proof which is true you dont have any, i said you are a blind faith believer that the only explanation you will entertain is otherworldly so you are also closed minded and biased which is also true.

I wish you had more than a extraordinary story and such a bad attitude about having zero proof that you have to remove all your integrity by calling people names but it is what it is.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by the13bats

[the13bats]

 

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

How do 4 people misidentify what was clearly a flying saucer that few just above them for a half hour? That at one point came so close to them that they became nervous? I nearly ran

I know we have had this conversation before, but if you had been there that night I have no doubt in my mind you’d be speaking in defense of flying saucers right now. I’d bet the life of my first born son on it. 

30 mins...plenty of time to snap a pic, call the law etc,  gee, did any one else in the area report seeing it?

you claim of 3 others with you, they arent here collaborating now are they?

[lost_shaman]

On 8/2/2019 at 6:57 AM, stereologist said:

The issue needs to be clarified here. You seem to be unaware that the issue is not "around the world" but the thinking of people in LA in 1942.

You might want to review the thread to understand the discussion. You seem to be a bit lost here.

As to the rest of your post, Egyptian and Middle Ages? Not really. 

Of course @skliss is correct here. The idea of "Others" has been around that long. What do you think "Angels" as superior beings from "heaven" that live outside of Earth in "the Heavens" would be?

As for disks in space in history,... What do you think people made of Saturn in the early 17th Century?

These things were CLEARLY in peoples imaginations centuries ago!

(MDCXX = 1620AD before people knew what Planets were or what Gravity was, they could watch this "Disk" like Mars and Jupiter fly past the Stars in the sky.)

Edited August 5, 2019 by lost_shaman

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

These things were CLEARLY in peoples imaginations centuries ago!