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 -

Debunking the Disclosure Project


drew hempel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Look who's spamming, this topic is 7 pages long with 80% of the text yours lol.

I cannot even keep up with half the things spewing out here lol, so ill just back away slowly.o.O

Exactly -- NO EVIDENCE OF ALIEN CRAFT -- BUT TONS OF EVIDENCE OF CIA DISINFORMATION AND TOP SECRET NAZI CRAFT!!

All my replies are RESPONSES TO IDIOTS!!

1) I posted an except from the book "Missile Envy" by Dr. Helen Caldicott, detailing nuclear weapons accidents

2) I posted how NASA and top secret aircraft ARE DESTROYING EARTH

3) I posted the CIA Pentacle Document PROVING CIA SPREAD OF ALIEN DISINFORMATION

4)I posted the interview with Greg Bishop about his book Project Beta (proving more CIA ALIEN DISINFORMATION)

5) I posted an excerpt from Messengers of Deception -- again more evidence for CIA ALIEN DISINFORMATION

6) I posted a detailed expose on secret Nazi aircraft that resemble "flying saucers"

7) I posted detailed sourced about the U.S. bring 1200 Nazi scientists to the U.S. to work in aerospace industry and mind control industry

8) I posted detail information about the CIA using the SRI to promote Alien Invasion Disinformation

9) I posted excerpts from peer-reviewed documents by the Smithsonian Space expert proving that Wernher Von Braun personally supervised mass slave labor in which 20,000 people were killed. IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMS CONTRARY!!

http://drewhempel.gnn.tv

http://nonduality.com/hempel.htm

ALL FOR FREE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this was supposed to be your Job. Instead, you're just posting an interview with Nick Redern and offering it as some kind of conclusive evidence.

This tells us... that Nick, maybe changed his mind and changed his opinion and that's all.

Which is entirely up to him. Maybe he'll change again. It's up to him, not like there's a law against it. Depends how highly you regard Mr Redfern's opinion in the first place.

Bothered..

Again YOU ARE GIVING OLD INFORMATION THAT IS A BUNCH OF BALONEY -- YOU ARE NOT EVEN GIVING THE WEBSITE THAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR INFORMATION!!

STOP SPAMMING!!

Here's from the http://www.thewhyfiles.net/index2.htm -- updated April, 2006:

A UFO crash?

“It was absolutely enormous, maybe several hundred feet in height”

In his book “Cosmic Crashes” (Simon and Schuster, 1999), Nick Redfern dedicates a full chapter to the incident in the Berwyn Mountains – Mountains of Mystery (Chapter Seven) – in which he presents a case supporting the concept of a UFO crashing into the lonely Welsh hillside.

Nick Redfern was the “major player” as far as the crashed UFO theory was concerned

but by the time of the publication of Dr. David Clarke and Andy Roberts’ book “Out of the Shadows” (Piatkus, 2002), he had seemingly mellowed his opinion that a UFO had crash landed in the Berwyns on the evening of January 23rd, 1974.

As with the theory that an aircraft crash has caused the incident, the suggestion that an extraterrestrial craft impacted and the incident was successfully covered-up by government agencies does not stand up to examination. Even with prior knowledge of such an event the logistical problems would be a nightmare. Certainly the craft mentioned by Nick Redfern in his book “Cosmic Crashes” could not have been removed by any number of military personnel in just a few days.

Nick quotes one witness as saying:

“It was absolutely enormous, maybe several hundred feet in height”. (P. 130)

To even consider the possibility of a craft of that size being dismantled and transported without the exercise being quite evident is beyond the limits of any reasonable imagination. This is apart from the fact that the object would have to have been constructed in such a way that it could be conveniently dismantled, completely ignoring any scientific procedures that would have to have been adhered in order to avoid cross-contamination etc…..

The thought that a massive craft of extraterrestrial origin plus any possible inhabitants of the craft could have been reduced to suitable components for transportation in just a matter of days is, like the plane crash theory, untenable.

Also, as with the plane crash theory, in order for the crash to create shockwaves that were felt up to 40 miles away, there must have been severe environmental devastation to the immediate locality, devastation on such a scale that it just couldn’t be hidden. Let’s remember that the Berwyn Mountains are inhabited by people who for generations have made a living from the land. Could the evidence of any form of high impact crash involving a craft of any origin be covered up to such an extent that it fooled the local population or, indeed, anyone with a spattering of observational capabilities.

A UFO quite definitely did not crash into a Berwyn mountain top in North Wales on 23rd January, 1974.

A Load of old Bolides?

“The bolides were seen from 7.20p.m. to 8-00p.m. during which a localized earth tremor was experienced in North Wales” (Out of the Shadows, p.218. Clarke and Roberts)

Dr. Ron Maddison, an astronomer, actually visited the Berwyns within a few days of the incident in order to conduct an investigation. Dr. Maddison came to the opinion that the events had been caused by the entry into the atmosphere of a number of bolide meteors accompanied by an earth tremor along the Bala Fault. Dr. Maddison was also interviewed for the television documentary “Down to Earth” and gave voice to his opinions therein.

Edited by drew hempel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='drew hempel' date='Sep 17 2006, 05:18 PM' post='1353759']

Exactly -- NO EVIDENCE OF ALIEN CRAFT -- BUT TONS OF EVIDENCE OF CIA DISINFORMATION AND TOP SECRET NAZI CRAFT!!

Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern writes a monthly column on UFOs for the website Destination Space. He also co-writes a bi-weekly column for the website UFO City. In addition, Nick has a monthly, 3-hour link-up with the Jeff Rense Sightings radio show in the USA to discuss the latest UFO news from the U.K.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail32.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='drew hempel' date='Sep 17 2006, 05:28 PM' post='1353768']

In his book “Cosmic Crashes” (Simon and Schuster, 1999), Nick Redfern dedicates a full chapter to the incident in the Berwyn Mountains – Mountains of Mystery (Chapter Seven) – in which he presents a case supporting the concept of a UFO crashing into the lonely Welsh hillside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this was supposed to be your Job. Instead, you're just posting an interview with Nick Redern and offering it as some kind of conclusive evidence.

This tells us... that Nick, maybe changed his mind and changed his opinion and that's all.

Which is entirely up to him. Maybe he'll change again. It's up to him, not like there's a law against it. Depends how highly you regard Mr Redfern's opinion in the first place.

Bothered..

AGAIN NICK REDFERN BASES HIS OPINION ON EVIDENCE -- NOT JUST BLIND FAITH -- THAT'S WHY HE'S AN INVESTIAGATOR AND NOT SOME IDIOT SPAMMER!!

For his latest coverage of the below incident see "ON THE TRAIL OF THE SAUCER SPIES" -- the title says it all!! Here's the rest of your Berwyn Mountains "alien spacecraft" b.s. !! from http://whyfiles.net

Dr. RonMaddison, respected astronomer, claims that the events were caused by the entry into the atmosphere of a number of bright meteorites and an earth tremor.

Andy Roberts

Andy Roberts was employed as "series consultant" by the company that produced the documentary "Down to Earth" which featured Dr. Ron Maddison's explanation for the Berwyn Mountains Incident. Andy conducted an investigation some years later and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Maddison.

Short audio file of Dr. Maddison expressing his explanation of what happened during the Berwyn Mountains Incident. This explanation was repeated by Andy Roberts some years later. Click Here

Andy Roberts did investigate the Berwyn Mountain Incident in some depth (The Berwyn Mountain UFO Crash - A British Roswell?) and along with Dr. Clarke he also covered the incident in their book “Out of the Shadows”. In “Out of the Shadows” they endorse Dr. Ron Maddison’s explanation in maintaining that the events were caused by human misperception and the coincidental occurrence of a number of bolides entering the earth’s atmosphere at the same time as an earth tremor taking place. Roberts also maintains that a group of poachers were on the mountain side that night and their lights added to the confusion.

Roberts and Clarke also maintain that the refusal of Ufologists to make use of all available sources of documentary evidence has encouraged the development of an alleged government cover up of an alien crash landing.

Without doubt this last assertion is true but the question has to be asked – could the appearance of a large glowing sphere be attributed to a meteor shower?

Is this explanation just a little bit too “coincidental”, does it really fit the bill?

There has been talk of an “alternative explanation” for the Berwyn Mountains incident, an alternative that has not been discussed - is there evidence available that provides an alternative and plausible explanation of the Berwyn Mountains Incident? Evidence that meets the basic accepted facts of the sound of enormous explosions, a strange glowing sphere and the military presence on that desolate Welsh hillside on a cold winter’s night?

Similar events but elsewhere?

Mrs Evans was able to describe the ball as ‘large’, and forming a ‘perfect circle’. But it didn’t appear to be three dimensional. In an interview she recalled, ‘There were no flames shooting or anything like that. It was very uniform, round in shape...it was a flat round...’. As she watched in puzzlement the light changed colour several times from red to yellow to white. Smaller lights, ‘fairy lights’ in Mrs Evans’ words, could be seen nearby.

“ this incredibly bright light lit up the sky, like an arc welder, two or three miles away, lasting for about 20-30 seconds. "I do not believe that it was a UFO but I would like to find out exactly what it was." Hugh Lloyd, a farmer from Garthiaen, Llandrillo, who was 14 at the time of the incident

The above statements refer to the incident in the Berwyns but were the events witnessed by the residents of that lonely location in North Wales unique? Are there any other incidents that offer the same evidence as the Berwyn Mountain events?

Let’s take a look at just a few reports of incidents which took place in other parts of the world and over a large time span.

Bright Spheres of Light

On June 17, 1966 from the air near Teheran, Iran, several airline pilots sighted a brilliant sphere of light, "sitting on the horizon," so to speak, deep within the Soviet Union. The intensely glowing sphere expanded to enormous size, dimming as it expanded, always remaining "sitting on the horizon." The pilots observed the phenomenon for 4 to 5 minutes. A CIA report on the incident was released under the Freedom of Information Act.

On September 10, 1976, the crew and passengers of British European Airway Flight 831, over Lithuania en route from Moscow to London, observed an intensely glowing, stationary ball of light above the clouds underneath the plane. When alerted by the airline pilot, Soviet authorities on the ground curtly informed him to pay no attention and, effectively, to exit the area.

From Afghanistan in September 1979, British war cameraman Nick Downie observed gigantic, expanding spheres of light deep within the Soviet Union, toward the direction of Saryshagan missile test range.

On June 18, 1982, pilots and crews of Japan Air Lines Flights 403 and 421 reported sighting a giant, expanding globe of light in the North Pacific, 700 kilometers east of Kushiro.

In the late 1990s John Locker (acknowledged satellite expert, astronomer, broadcaster and researcher) received a report from Jim Kopf which referred to an incident which occurred whilst he was serving on the aircraft carrier, USS John F. Kennedy CVA-67 (now CV-67) in the area of ocean which has become to be known as the Bermuda Triangle. The year was 1971 and the ship was returning to Norfolk, VA after completing a two week operational readiness exercise (ORE) in the Caribbean.

The USS John F. Kennedy CVA-67 (now CV-67)The USS John F. Kennedy CVA-67 (now CV-67)

Jim Kopf’ was assigned to the communications section of the ship and his report related an incident which occurred one evening at approximately 8-30p.m.

In his own words:

“There is an intercom there to communicate with the Signal Bridge and over this intercom we heard someone yelling "There is something hovering over the ship!" A moment later we heard another voice yelling. "IT IS GOD! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!".

We all looked at each other, there were six of us in the Comm Center, and someone said, "Lets go have a look!". The Comm Center is amidships, just under the flight deck, almost in the center of the ship. We went out the door, through Facilities Control and out that door, down the passageway (corridor) about 55 feet to the hatch that goes out to the catwalk on the edge of the flight deck (opposite from the "Island" or that part of the ship where the bridge is). If you have ever been to sea, there is a time called the time of no horizon. This happens in the morning and evening just as the sun comes up or goes down over the horizon.

During this time you cannot tell where the sea and sky meet. This is the time of evening it was. As we looked up, we saw a large, glowing sphere. Well it seemed large, however, there was no point of reference. That is to say, if the sphere were low; say 100 feet above the ship, then it would have been about two to three hundred feet in diameter. If it were say 500 feet about the ship then it would have been larger. It made no sound that I could hear. The light coming from it wasn't too bright, about half of what the sun would be. It sort of pulsated a little and was yellow to orange……………………………………… I heard from the scuttlebut (slang - rumor mill) that three or four "men in trench coats" had landed, and were interviewing the personnel that had seen this phenomena. I was never interviewed, maybe because no one knew that I had seen it.

A few days latter, as we were approaching Norfolk, the Commanding and Executive Officers came on the closed circuit TV system that we had. They did this regularly to address the crew and pass on information. During this particular session the Captain told us how well we did on the ORE and about our upcoming deployment to the Mediterranean. At the very end of his spiel, he said "I would like to remind the crew, that certain events that take place aboard a Naval Combatant Ship, are classified and are not to be discussed with anyone without a need to know". This was all the official word I ever received or heard of the incident.

John Locker was intrigued by Jim Kopf’s report because he was well aware of the use of UFO sightings as a cover for the testing of military weapons, equipment and craft or how the military test the response of their own forces using the UFO theme as cover. John contacted Jim Kopf suggesting this idea and received the following reply:

Hi John,

I found your message most interesting and thought provoking. I find your theory very believable and plausible. You may use my experience and use my name if you would like. I have received a few messages concerning my post and all have been very good responses. Years ago when I experienced this I didnt even think of aliens at the time but because we were in the Bermuda Triangle thought of it more as a strange phenomena. To tell the truth, a few days after the incident, I didnt even think of it again until years later. I guess I was thinking more about my impending marriage and my life in general and could not be bothered with trivial things like UFOs <grin>. Let me know how your investigation progresses.

Have a very Merry Christmas and a great New Year.

Sincerely

Jim Kopf

Mt. Airy, Maryland

These are not UFO reports but were believed to be resultant of the deployment or testing of a military weapon. But is there such a military weapon or device which creates enough energy to cause a massive earth tremor and also a bright sphere which the uninformed could be duped or persuaded into believing to be a UFO?

Scalar Electromagnetic Weaponry

In 1912, Nikola Tesla, inventive genius, stated in an interview that:

“It would be possible to split the planet, by combining vibrations with the correct resonance of the earth itself. Tesla stated, "Within a few weeks, I could set the earth's crust into such a state of vibrations that it would rise and fall hundreds of feet, throwing rivers out of their beds, wrecking buildings, and practically destroying civilization. The principle cannot fail..."

Tesla once set off a growing local vibration and shaking of the entire neighborhood around his laboratory, using a 10-lb. device. Tesla later improved on his concepts, calling this area "telegeodynamics".

In 1935 he added:

"The rhythmical vibrations pass through the earth with almost no loss of energy... It becomes possible to convey mechanical effects to the greatest terrestrial distances and produce all kinds of unique effects... The invention could be used with destructive effect in war..."

In January 1960, President Khrushchev announced that the USSR were in possession of a potentially devastating new weapon:

“The development of a new, fantastic weapon-one so powerful it could wipe out all life on earth if unrestrainedly used.” The New York Times printed part of the story.

President Khrushchev making a point at the United Nations.

On July 20, 1982, Soviet official Lysenko of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. stated publicly that:

“Should nuclear disarmament fail, the Soviets would quickly introduce new weapons more powerful than nuclear arms, and these weapons would not be verifiable”

It is thought that Khrushchev and Lysenko were referring to the newly emerging scalar EM weapons. So in early 1960s were the Soviets at least what we call the engineering development stage for large scalar EM beam weapons, which would be deployed when finished?

The original concept of Scalar EM devices has been attributed by some to electrical engineer T.H. Moray of Salt Lake City. By 1939 Moray had developed a “radiant energy device” which weighed only 55 pounds and produced 50 kilowatts of power. It is thought that detailed drawings of this device were obtained by subterfuge by the Russians.

In the years that followed World War Two a massive and aggressive arms race began between the U.S.A. and Russia. Russia fell somewhat behind as far as the development of rocketry and aircraft were concerned but were, presumably, ultimately successful in the development of Scalar EM weaponry. The reports relating to the sighting of bright spheres of light, above, have all been attributed to the development and testing of Scalar EM weapons.

For example, in reference to the Saryshagan incident it was also reported:

Saryshagan apparently contains at least one directed energy or particle beam installation which could possibly function as a scalar interferometer/scalar EM howitzer. Downie observed multiple incidents in the direction of Saryshagan during the actual month (September 1979) that the first anomalous flash was detected by U.S. Vela satellites.

The peculiar "nuclear flashes" seen by the Vela satellites in September 1979 and December 1980 could have been due to a testing of a scalar EM howitzer in the pulsed exothermic mode. In the mode, scalar EM pulses meet at a distance, where their interference produces a sharp electromagnetic explosion (hence the "flash", very similar to the initial EMP flash of a nuclear explosion. Even in the vacuum of space, such an explosive eruption of energy from within the local spacetime vacuum itself may be expected to lift matter from the Dirac sea, producing a plasma. Prompt absorption and re-radiation of energy from this sudden plasma may be expected to present nearly the same "double peak" profile as does a nuclear explosion. This was the profile presented by the flashes. Note that the second flash detected was apparently of an "explosion" primarily in the infrared, almost certainly ruling out a conventional nuclear event. It does not rule out, however, pulsed distant holography using pumped EM giant time-reversed wave transmitters.

Military Cover-Up?

In 1952 the CIA Walter B. Smith, Director of the CIA, wrote to The National Security Council suggesting the consideration that problems connected with unidentified flying objects appear to have implications for psychological warfare as well as for intelligence and operations.

In other words, military activity such as the testing and development of aircraft, weaponry and equipment, could be hidden behind a “smoke screen” of deliberately fabricated UFO activity and reports.

In his television documentary “Secret Evidence” (Channel 4 Television) Nick Cook (“Jane's Defense Weekly”) explored this concept of using UFO reports to mask military activity.

He interviewed Duke Gildenberg who was involved in the development of the “Skyhook Balloon” in the years following the Second World War. Gildenberg confirmed that, at times, they actually used UFO reports generated by the sighting of top secret devices, in order to keep track of the devices themselves.

Nick Cook also interviewed Melvin Goodman who was a Senior Analyst with the CIA from 1966 to 1986. Goodman confirmed that UFO reports were used as a means of covering up top secret activity such as the U2 spy plane and the testing of equipment, namely:

“The CIA and the Military were involved in encouraging people to believe that what they saw were UFOs”

He also gave credence to the suggestion that this usage of UFOs as a “cover-up” did, in fact, migrate across the Atlantic and was used to good effect in the U.K.

The 1952 CIA memo which refers to the use of UFO reports to cover-up military activity.

Summation:

Is there enough evidence to propose that the incident which occurred in the Berwyn Mountains on January 23rd 1974 could have been caused by the testing of a military device which was covered up by the use of a UFO story, sensational enough to distort and pollute the true events so much that they are not even given proper consideration?

Certainly it seems unlikely that the British Military were not in the development stage of EM weaponry in the 1950s but possibly the situation had changed by the 1960s and into the 1970s.

Certainly certain aspects of the incident do lend themselves to the suggestion of the deployment of a Scalar EM device, namely:

1. As we have seen, events very similar to those which occurred during the Berwyn Mountains Incident have, in fact, happened previously.

2. The violent rumblings and vibrations felt in the earth - – a symptom of Scalar weapon deployment

3. The appearance of a large sphere of light – again apparent in the use and testing of Scalar EM weapons.

4. The seemingly immediate presence of the military – they were there before the test commenced. It should be noted that the more isolated and exposed areas of Wales have frequently been used by the military for training, testing etc… The presence of the military would also explain the attendant lights seen by Mrs Evans and her daughters and which Andy Roberts attributed to poachers’ lights.

5. The removal of a large wooden box by the military – the transportation of the weapon itself. It worth considering that EM devices are reputedly quite portable – Tesla’s device weighing only 10lb and T.H. Moray’s only 55lb.

6. It was known that a bolide meteor shower was due to enter the Earth’s atmosphere that evening and would be visible in the geographic location – an ideal cover up for any strange lights that would be seen in the skies over the Berwyns.

7. The fact that the press and television latched on to the story in so much details so quickly – deliberately motivated by the military and other agencies using the old ploy of covering up a military operation by the use of a UFO sighting. As we have seen, Nick Cook’s research certainly supports this concept. It is of interest to note that the original calls by the residents of the Berwyns to the emergency services were because of their concern that there might have been a plane crash, something that had happened previously in the area. There seems to have been no intimation on the evening of the 23rd January 1974 that anyone reported a UFO incident.

Whilst we can be absolutely certain that it wasn’t little green men from space who were running about a hillside in the Berwyn Mountains on January 23rd 1974, we can consider that it was, in fact, the British Military in combat fatigues, panicking because the testing of a Scalar EM weapon had gone astray.

It may be of relevance to note that Tom Slemen reports:

In 1980, an electronics engineer named Arthur Adams, who had worked on Concorde, visited the Berwyn UFO crash-site and found strange green coloured pieces of metal embedded in the rocks there. He took samples of the metal to his laboratory and discovered that a sample the size of a 1-inch cube gave off two kilowatts of electricity, when wired up to a volt meter. Mr Adams contacted the Daily Express, and they published a series of articles about the strange find, but the Ministry of Defence stepped in and killed the story.

Perhaps the British Military did, in fact, leave evidence of the deployment of a Scalar EM device on that lonely Welsh hillside in January 1974.

Update; June 2006

Black Projects cause Sonic Booms

On Wednesday 14th June 2006, BBC 2’s nightly news programme “Newsnight” featured an item on “Black Projects”, discussing the incidences of top secret military weapons etc.. being tested in UK airspace.

During the programme Jeremy Paxman, anchor man of the show, stated that during the 1980s and 90s there were numerous sonic booms heard down the west coast of the U.K. which remain unexplained. Some of these “booms” were so powerful that they registered as earthquakes.

==================================================

References:

“Out of the Shadows” – Dr. David Clarke and Andy Roberts. Piattkus (Publishers) Ltd. 2002

“Cosmic Crashes” (Simon and Schuster, 1999), Nick Redfern

What is "Scalar Electromagnetics"? By Rick Andersen, 7/3/97

Tom Slemen – Tom Slemem’s Strange World - http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Park/4065/berwyn.html

Jenny Randles - "UFO Retrievals" Blandford Pr (August 1995)

John Locker - http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/.

Nick Cooke – “The Secret Evidence” (Channel 4 Television, 2005)

Thanks to Jim Kofp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See www.thewhyfiles.net/berwyn_mountain_Incident.html

Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern writes a monthly column on UFOs for the website Destination Space. He also co-writes a bi-weekly column for the website UFO City. In addition, Nick has a monthly, 3-hour link-up with the Jeff Rense Sightings radio show in the USA to discuss the latest UFO news from the U.K.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail32.htm

see http://www.thewhyfiles.net/berwyn_mountain_Incident.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only wonder whom that would be!

WHAT DOES NICK REDFERN THINK OF THE WHY FILES ANALYSIS?

http://www.thewhyfiles.net/index2.htm

Guys, The site is a great addition to the UFO subject. I like that you have a bunch of different things on there covering all aspects of ufology and much more besides. You are doing a great job. Cheers, Nick Redfern.

Edited by drew hempel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I'm a hypocrite? Yep, we’ve all noticed if anyone disagrees with you they’re a hypocrite, idiot or disinfo agent. :lol:

Anyway many Ufologists do respect Nick Redfern’s research but just disagree with his conclusions. Which, funny enough are debatable.

Unfortunately, the more you endorse Nick's work, the more a detrimental effect it has and puts people off.

Keywords; debatable- paranoid-egotistical-mental health issues.

I don't endorse anyone -- I just read books:

Nick Redfern's 3 books -- Strange Secrets, On the Trail of the Saucer Spies and Body Snatchers in the Desert

John Keel's Operation Trojan Horse

Jacque Vallee's Messengers of Deception

Greg Bishop's Project Beta

Curt Sutherly's UFO Mysteries

George P. Hansen's Trickster and the Paranormal http://tricksterbook.com

All those books have detailed documents proving CIA ALIEN DISINFORMATION!!!

http://www.thewhyfiles.net/index2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Redfern

Nick Redfern writes a monthly column on UFOs for the website Destination Space. He also co-writes a bi-weekly column for the website UFO City. In addition, Nick has a monthly, 3-hour link-up with the Jeff Rense Sightings radio show in the USA to discuss the latest UFO news from the U.K.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Researchers/Detail32.htm

Again this is 6 years old!! Nick Redfern has no blind faith in aliens -- his opinion is based on EVIDENCE and LOGIC!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this was supposed to be your Job. Instead, you're just posting an interview with Nick Redern and offering it as some kind of conclusive evidence.

This tells us... that Nick, maybe changed his mind and changed his opinion and that's all.

Which is entirely up to him. Maybe he'll change again. It's up to him, not like there's a law against it. Depends how highly you regard Mr Redfern's opinion in the first place.

Bothered..

This will give you all the details you need on how and why Nick Redfern changes his opinion -- again based on the best evidence and analysis!!

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/update...g/m07-005.shtml

Also keep in mind that the latest investigation of this issue by Nick Redfern put him under governmental surveillance because they thought Nick was using UFOlogy as a cover for his animal rights activism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='drew hempel' date='Sep 17 2006, 06:06 PM' post='1353821']

Again this is 6 years old!! Nick Redfern has no blind faith in aliens -- his opinion is based on EVIDENCE and LOGIC!!

6 years old??? How long has Nick Redfern's book, "Cosmic Crashes" been out? How many years has it been since Stanton Friedman interviewed Jesse Marcel? Has the years changed his mind on what happened there? No! Beware of researchers who change their minds on the spur-of-the-moment. That link you posted is over 3 years old.

The following was taken from Nick Redfern's own website.

Cosmic Crashes

http://www.nickredfern.com/cosmic_crashes.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 years old??? How long has Nick Redfern's book, "Cosmic Crashes" been out? How many years has it been since Stanton Friedman interviewed Jesse Marcel? Has the years changed his mind on what happened there? No! Beware of researchers who change their minds on the spur-of-the-moment. That link you posted is over 3 years old.

The following was taken from Nick Redfern's own website.

Cosmic Crashes

http://www.nickredfern.com/cosmic_crashes.htm

GOD ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT!! How hard is it to "prove" when the book "Cosmic Crashes" came out???

Enough spamming already!! Here's a discussion of "Cosmic Crashes" in 1999!!!

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/update...v/m07-004.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 years old??? How long has Nick Redfern's book, "Cosmic Crashes" been out? How many years has it been since Stanton Friedman interviewed Jesse Marcel? Has the years changed his mind on what happened there? No! Beware of researchers who change their minds on the spur-of-the-moment. That link you posted is over 3 years old.

The following was taken from Nick Redfern's own website.

Cosmic Crashes

http://www.nickredfern.com/cosmic_crashes.htm

Again -- I've proven that Nick Redfern bases his opinion on research and evidence!!

This is all OLD NEWS -- one of Greer's top witnesses is a PROVEN FRAUD:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6&hl=boylan

Edited by drew hempel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again -- I've proven that Nick Redfern bases his opinion on research and evidence!!

If that were the case, he would have seen that the Roswell incident involved no Japanese balloon nor an attached flying contraption. The fact the military never knew anything about a crash until later notified by a civilian was a major clue that the military wasn't covering up test on Japanese midgets. Besides, the material recover didn't match a Japanese balloon nor a wooden craft.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

It was easier for the Japanese to dischange agents from submarines rather than from a balloon that would have been tracked over a vast area. On another point, it has long been public knowledge that American soldiers were exposed to nuclear test and that fact was made public many years ago. No secret now yet we are being led to believe that we are still covering up test on Japanese midgets??? I don't think!

This is all OLD NEWS -- one of Greer's top witnesses is a PROVEN FRAUD:

Given the fact that many of the Disclosure witnesses can back up their evidence with documented facts, there is not much more to say on that issue.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again -- I've proven that Nick Redfern bases his opinion on research and evidence!!

In his book, Nick Redfern claims that alien bodies were recovered. Now, are you implying that his book is no good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his book, Nick Redfern claims that alien bodies were recovered. Now, are you implying that his book is no good?

I ALREADY posted the link that gives the details from Nick -- why he changed his position from earlier book. Apparently you haven't read the link! Here you go:

From: Max Burns <max.burns.nul>

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:40:23 +0100

Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:45:21 -0400

Subject: Re: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF -

>From: Nicholas Redfern <nick.redfern.nul>

>To: ufoupdates.nul

>Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT)

>Subject: Re: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>

>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>

>>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:10:57 -0500

>>Subject: Link to Max Burns' "The Usual Suspects" PDF

>I have just read Max Burns' piece on Dave Clarke and Andy

>Roberts.

>Max states that with Andy and Dave I took the easy option re

>their views/comments, changed my opinions on the Berwyn case

>because of Andy's attacks and am now quite pally with the

>terrible twosome and stand in line rather than stand up.

>Okay, let's look at the facts (quickly, as this in no way

>advances ufology, but it does allow me to at least put the

>matter in its right context for anyone that reads Max's

>article). First, I don't ever go along with what people say

>because it's the easy option. I go through life doing exactly

>what I want to do on my own terms, hence the reason why I have

>never worked 9 to 5 for nearly 20 years - I don't like being

>told what to do by other people.

Nick, I can only say that this was not just my opinion but a

fair amount of people's opinions some who are very friendly with

you. We both know each other and I have spoken with you quite a

few times over the years. It seemed to me that we got on well.

We all know how head strong you are and on the whole I would

normally have agreed with the above. I knew that this was going

to upset you. But the fact remains that after Roberts

criticising your Berwyn Mountains stuff many in UK ufology saw

this to be the case.

You are saying this is not the case fair enough, you are only

one person in a long line of people that Roberts and Clarke have

brow beaten into submission or not as you state. However this does

not diminish the content of the article in the slightest.

>Max also states that I am now friends with Andy and that this

>largely stemmed following a vicious attack on me and my

>conclusions on the notorious Berwyn case of 1974. Saying that I

>am now quite friendly with Andy implies that this wasn't always

>the case. However, it WAS always the case. I have got on very

>well with Andy right back to the days when I used to subscribe

>to his UFO Brigantia magazine way back in the 80s.

Nick, I am very pleased that you have chosen someone of such

high moral standing to call a friend. I have spoken with Andy,

in private, about his behaviour and he has not offered a proper

rebuttal or apology to anything that I said to him about the

behaviour of him & Clarke. Don't get me wrong. I can always

spend ten minutes talking with Andy. Indeed we have spoken in

person in the last year in person and it was good to see him on

one of his few occasions with nothing to say of any of the

points that I raised with him.

>For some reason, so many people in ufology seem to think that

>if you disagree vehemently with someone else on a ufoligical issue,

>you can't be friends with them - which is crazy.

I totally agree.

>Fact is: Andy and I still disagree on a lot when it comes to

>ufology (and - shock! even on the Berwyns on a few points), but

>it doesn't mean we can't sit down and have a pint together.

>Furthermore, Max says that my turnaround and standing in line

>approach came after I was viciously attacked in Andy's Armchair

>Ufologist re my views on the "British Roswell" - the Berwyn

>Mountain case of 1974.

>Er, no, actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was

>this: Andy sent me his report on the Berwyn incident which, when

>I read it, led me to believe that he had come up with the best

>explanation for the case. Granted, there are still some

>anomalies, but as far as being largely solved, I think Andy has

>done that.

>And as someone who has never "needed" to believe in UFOs, I

>decided to discard the Berwyn case as being an example of a

>genuine UFO incident and I moved on. And this was based on me

>studying Andy's data and comparing it to other people's and then

>coming to a conclusion.

Is this the hoax data, or the alleged real data that Roberts

produces without full disclosure how can you be sure that you

are not just another victim of the Roberts dis-information game?

For example, Roberts has stated that Margaret Fry does not keep

detailed contemporaneous notes from her interviews in public.

That is a lie, and I have seen the many diaries that Margaret

Fry has kept concerning her investigation of the Berwyn case.

>It had NOTHING to do with me getting in

>line, taking an easy option or not wanting to confront Andy and

>Dave and playing it safe. It comes down to the fact (and nothing

>else) that, as far as I am concerned, Andy had solved the story.

>In fact, I fail to see how when presented with the evidence

>anyone can see my stance as anything than what it is.

>Now it is true that many of my previous beliefs on the UFO

>subject have changed and changed radically, and it's also true

>that this is in part due to Dave and Andy. But...it's not due to

>me taking a soft line or "towing the line" or bullying tactics.

>You really think I would stand for something like that Max?

I would like to have said no, but to be honest with you Nick, I

am going to reproduce a private email that your mate Roberts

just could not help himself from circulating around. It concerns

this subject of the "Blue Hare" and your comments. If you,

actually made these comments. You could confirm or deny this?

I was always of the opinion that you are a stand up guy and we

have a number of mutual good friends in UK Ufology. I was

stunned to hear from Roberts that you thought that the "Blue

Hare" action against me and my research and ufology with regard

to the hoaxing, made you "chortle".

Email Roberts to Burns/ Williams etc 24/04/2002

I think you're in for a suprise then Matthew. Also, I think you

should ask Nick R what he thinks about the material he's seen

from the book. Er, and I think you should digest Nick's comments

(received yesterday evening) regarding our experiments:

>Hi Andy, Cheers for this, which made me chortle. I see nothing

>wrong in your logic about seeing how hoaxes develop etc. Much

>fun and keep up the good work! Best, Nick.

Nick, much fun? This was not even a hoax developing, it was an

attempt to plant false info into my research. Nick you know me.

So you thought that it was good fun that I had my time, money,

and effort wasted. ? Not to mention that the agenda of Roberts

and Clarke was purely to try and discredit my research. NOTHING

to do with science. If you believe that then you are not as

smart as I thought you were. I am a bit smarter than they gave

me credit for and to that end was able to resist the

implantation of bogus data in to my research.

How would you be if they had tried that stunt on you?

>If you do, you truly don't know me at all. It is purely and simply

>that the research they have done on Govt files in particular has

>led me to alter many of my views.

Would you care to alter your views of Clarke & Roberts now that

a fuller picture of what they are about has been revealed a year

after publication Clarke remains silent and even un-subscribed

from this list rather than answer the calls that the silence was

deafening. Even though up to the point of publication of the

usual suspects. Clarke had an opinion on just about everything.

I have shown he is a liar. Roberts has been reduced to sending

private posts to updates mailers, now claiming that the debate

is best on a one to one basis.

You have read the article, have you got anything to say about

the large amount of damming completely footnoted evidence

against Roberts & Clarke. Or do you still support them?

I just know that it may damage your credibility if you were to

write another book with an admitted HOAXER.

>It really is that simple. But

>as I don't "live" for UFOs in a geeky "I want to believe" style,

Nick, I agree, listen if you say that I am mistaken along with

the other UK Ufologists. Then OK, I am sorry if that was not the

case, I did not mean to offend you. If you want to disagree we

can do that and still remain on speaking terms, as you have all

ready stated.

>I have no problem changing my views when the evidence suggests

>change is needed.

What are your views now that evidence presented suggests change

is needed? Nick, I don't wish to fall out with you, but let's

face it you have read the article and change is needed, not

apologies for the behaviour of Clarke and Roberts.

Alfred Lehmberg's review and the download of the PDF file of

The Usual Suspects is available from

http://www.rense.com/general56/RETRURN.HTM

Max Burns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were the case, he would have seen that the Roswell incident involved no Japanese balloon nor an attached flying contraption. The fact the military never knew anything about a crash until later notified by a civilian was a major clue that the military wasn't covering up test on Japanese midgets. Besides, the material recover didn't match a Japanese balloon nor a wooden craft.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

It was easier for the Japanese to dischange agents from submarines rather than from a balloon that would have been tracked over a vast area. On another point, it has long been public knowledge that American soldiers were exposed to nuclear test and that fact was made public many years ago. No secret now yet we are being led to believe that we are still covering up test on Japanese midgets??? I don't think!

Given the fact that many of the Disclosure witnesses can back up their evidence with documented facts, there is not much more to say on that issue.

Again it's clear that you haven't read Nick Redfern's book on Roswell!! Also you have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE FOR ALIEN INVASION!!

None! I already watched the Disclosure Project and went through each witness -- the best evidence is witnessing humnoids in craft that are inexplicable.

That's NO ALIEN EVIDENCE!!

You continue to ignore the loads of evidence I've posted that the CIA has promoted the Alien Invasion Theory in order to cover up secret technology.

Also you have misrepresented information -- about the date Nick's book was published and about Nick's position on recovered bodies.

You're a dishonest spammer!! Nothing else.

Go read Nick Redfern's latest books plus the evidence on this forum!!

You have totally ignored all the information I've posted!!

What a spammer you are!!

hahaha.

I'm ignoring this thread from here on out -- people have already complained that I've posted TOO much information -- yet you have yet to even acknowledge any of it.

Seek professional help!!

You're in a cult!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another two way conversation which proves nothing.

Nick Redfern's main two sources; the mysterious unverified 3 star general and some underground merchant called the Sandman are taking Nick for a ride.

Ironic, the guy who calls everyone a CIA disinfo agent, is in reality believing CIA disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='drew hempel' date='Sep 17 2006, 11:01 PM' post='1354180']

Again it's clear that you haven't read Nick Redfern's book on Roswell!! Also you have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE FOR ALIEN INVASION!!

I am going to go with the Air Force's first story in which it released a report to the world that they had captured a 'flying saucer.' We already know that it had nothing to do with the military because initially, the mililtary knew notihing at all.

I already watched the Disclosure Project and went through each witness -- the best evidence is witnessing humnoids in craft that are inexplicable.

There would be those who would simply claim that Hollywood had something to do with it.

That's NO ALIEN EVIDENCE!!

What is that suppose to mean? There were those who've claimed the world was flat and that the goriila was a myth. There was an admiral who claimed the atomic bomb wouldn't work and others who've claimed that a workable airplane was impossible.

You continue to ignore the loads of evidence I've posted that the CIA has promoted the Alien Invasion Theory in order to cover up secret technology.

The UFO enigma goes back for centuries, which means that the UFO phenomenon existed long before the CIA handed out its first job applications.

Also you have misrepresented information -- about the date Nick's book was published and about Nick's position on recovered bodies.

Since he claimed that alien bodies were recovered, now are you going to trash his book that is still on the book shelves?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^?

Cosmic Crashes (Hardcover)

by Nicholas Redfern

"WHEN I BEGAN CONDUCTING RESEARCH INTO THE CRASH of an alien spacecraft somewhere in the United Kingdom during World War Two, not for one moment..." (more)

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Crashes-Nicho...n/dp/0684870231

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

Go read Nick Redfern's latest books plus the evidence on this forum!!

Does that mean that you are now dismssing Nick Redfern's book: "Cosmic Crashes" as nonsense? You can't have it both ways, you know! Either you support what he says in the book about alien bodies or you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='drew hempel' date='Sep 17 2006, 10:56 PM' post='1354174']

IApparently you haven't read the link! Here you go:

Interview With Nick Redfern

GT: I read somewhere that your father, a former RAF radar man, once described to you a series of strange sightings made by RAF personnel who were subsequently sworn to secrecy by the government. Is there any truth to this tale?

NR: Yes, my father worked for the British Royal Air Force on radar and was involved in several incidents where what could be termed UFOs were picked up the radar scopes and aircraft were sent up to intercept these things. This was September 1952 and in the last few years several official files have been declassified on these encounters, a number of which refer to sightings of classic flying saucer-like vehicles in the vicinity of British military installations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another two way conversation which proves nothing.

Nick Redfern's main two sources; the mysterious unverified 3 star general and some underground merchant called the Sandman are taking Nick for a ride.

Ironic, the guy who calls everyone a CIA disinfo agent, is in reality believing CIA disinformation.

Again apparently you have read Redfern's books -- his main sources are declassified documents that he got through FOIA.

Just read his books instead of jumping to fanciful conclusions -- let the evidence speak for itself!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again apparently you have read Redfern's books -- his main sources are declassified documents that he got through FOIA.

The Freedom of information Act. Excellent, if you could just point out which documents which I should check out? :P

FOIA

FOIA/ufo

UFO FACT SHEET There is no central office or activity in the Department of the Navy assigned the mission of collecting and maintaining information on UFO phenomenon, paranormal activity, and/or similar incidents. However, from 1947 to 1969, the U.S. Air Force investigated reported UFO objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:o there is alot

yeah shocking...that.

This search function at the NSA always makes me laugh.

The following terms have been searched in response to requests for information but no responsive material has been located.

NSA/ufo info

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read through 5 pages of debate and something struck me as funny. Drew, you dismiss guys like Stanton Friedman and debase their opinions, mocking their belief. You disregard eyewitness testimony by people who spend their entire lives in the military, a vocation that does not forgive stupidity. You refer to anyone who has not read some book as idiots, or spammers, or disinfo agents. But you quote people as gospel who have only a tenth of the education that Stanton has, you promote in a shameless way a book that is simply one man's opinion like a zealot. From what I can see you associate yourself with the type of people who stay out of the trenches and don't like to get their hands dirty. You keep coming back to this bunch of idiots on UM. You brag about some nothing thing in minnesota like you cured cancer or something. You yap about your masters degree like it covers over the fact that you spent all that money on an education and forgot charm school. You dismiss photo evidence like its nothing, ignoring the fact that there are definitive ways to prove photographic fakery. And expect everyone to take someone at their "word" like it established fact. I think for someone with a masters degree you have some shortsighted ways of thinking. Kinda like a plow animal with blinders on 24/7, your useful, but only for a specific task that you are lead too, like promoting nick's book. It's okay to be lead around by the nose, you just shouldn't expect anyone to follow like you obviously do. You offer no tangible evidence for your claims, just as most people who believe in UFOs do, so in essence you have a lot in common with the people you seem to detest the most.

So the question becomes if you don't believe that aliens are here do you even believe they exist? ball is in your court big shot. :D

Edited by contactismade
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.