• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Clueless article on "Rendlesham Forest"

Free episodes:

I notice you avoid the unpleasantness of the Penniston's ever-growing story.
Very wise.

Lance

In regards to Penniston's "ever growing story": One is maligned for remembering details directly after experiencing a traumatic event: prone to the caustic cocktail of emotions and trauma. One is maligned as well for accessing memory a good while after the event: prone to over-elaboration and the shortcomings of having to access memory which we all know is a fatally flawed system, and lets not forget about the shenanigans the subconscious can play. Seems to be a bit of a double bind if you know what I mean. Lance, you sound like a Deconstructionist (and of course I am taking liberties with the definition, but I'm thinking you might know what I mean. But probably not, and that is the joke).
 
I notice you avoid the unpleasantness of the Penniston's ever-growing story.
Very wise.
Lance

Yeah, according to you and Ian Ridpath maybe. As Hotkafka posts "...The Ian Ridpath article seems to avoid dealing with a good number of details mentioned in the report... I.E. the radiation readings, the trace evidence, the physical description of the craft, the bank of blue lights. Seems a rather myopic attempt at reconstructing a sighting."

Ridpath'scase seems to rely on the fact that Penniston didn't use the military 24 hr clock when writing in the times in his notepad (12:50 instead of 00:50). He also makes assumptions with Bertolino's recollections
"..Bertolino recounted that Penniston “pulls out the notebook and he diagrams what he saw out there. It was kind of diamond-shaped with tripod legs.” From this, it sounds as though Penniston sketched the object for Bertolino as they sat together. Bertolino does not mention seeing any existing notes or sketches of the craft in the notebook."
He assumes that Penniston sketches for Bertolino and just because Bertolino does not mention seeing any sketches or existing notes he tries to lead us into believing that they didn't exist at that time only to be fabricated at a later date.

You seem to be mistakenly convinced that anyone on these forums who disagrees with you and your skeptodebunker'sreasoning on any given case is what you call a "true believer"and with this i totally agree with wickerman.We just don't agree with your feeble attempts at explaining away these cases with less than stellar reasoning and examples. if you are going to provide prosaic examples of what it could be, please at least try to come up with something other than rehashing someone elses poor and often refuted attempts at debunking. You are just making yourself look foolish and inept.
 
Jeeze I mentioned it above.

Years after the "event" he produces a notebook (with the wrong dates and times) that contains his on the spot account of the experience. Burroughs says that Penniston never took any notes and there would not have been time to do so anyway.

Don't let that give you any pause, though!

Yeah, I was already looking into it. I assume you are talking about this:

A further problem with Burroughs' and Penniston's stories is that they have grown substantially over time, particularly Penniston's. In more recent TV interviews, they've both claimed that they saw the craft fly up out of the trees and fly around. Penniston has also unveiled a notebook which he claims he wrote during their forest chase, which he displayed on a 2003 Sci-Fi Channel documentary. Its times and dates are wrong, and Burroughs has stated that Penniston did not make any notes during the episode and would not have had time to even if he'd wanted. Penniston's story has also expanded to include a 45 minute personal walkaround inspection of the object during which he took a whole roll of photographs (seized by the the Air Force, of course), which from the written statements of all three men, is a clear fabrication.
After you made your accusation I went directly to skeptoid to look for the story because since I know that scoffers consider Dunning to be master of the universe and because Dunning makes things very convenient for the lazier debunkers with his spiffy 1 page articles that it was likely that is where you got the information. To be perfectly honest with you I have to reserve judgment on these claims because I haven't heard them before and can't be immediately sure of their accuracy. Now, if the accusations were coming from someone like Kevin Randle, Richard Hall, Richard Haines, Jerome Clark, or some other true skeptic I would be more more quick to accept them. But since they are instead coming from a zealot perversely masquerading as a thinking skeptic to make himself appear more credible than he is I need to look into it before I'm sure what to think. So I'll let ya' know later. But anyway, Penniston is one of approximately 80 witnesses. If his story starts looking fishy than I'll cast aside his claim of touching the craft. But the case as a whole would still be strong.
 
@pair of cats


What an astounding (and sadly typical) misrepresentation. Ridpath's point is not about the military time issue but the fact that the time and date are totally wrong (27 Dec 1980 at 12:20 instead of 26 December at 3am -the actual time and date). So when you ask me to be sure to not use refuted skeptical evidence am I to assume that when you say something is refuted you actually mean (as in this case) that you simply don't even understand the evidence?

@Wickerman--hilarious. Hey why don't you say 3000 witnesses--it sounds way better.

Lance

No, I'll say 80 because that is the number of total witnesses I've heard about (From the press conference James Fox put together.). But hey, even if it's just a few dozen that's still a hell of a lot more than Penniston himself.

Edit: Hmm, maybe I see your point now. When saying 80 I meant for the second night. Yes, I know there weren't many witnesses to what happened the first night. Sorry for the miscommunication.

---------- Post added at 03:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

As I said I would I am looking into this allegation about Penniston. It may take a few days before I've satisfied myself. So far I've found that it was Halt that got the date wrong in his memo, not Penniston, according to this anyway. Now, I'll be the first to admit that article appears to be linked up with earthfiles and that Howe is far from a reliable researcher. So I'm not accepting that as golden yet. So I'm still looking. I'm just hoping that this alleged difference in recall between Penniston and Burroughs doesn't end up turning into some bizarre abduction claim or something like that because that will make things very difficult to sort out. There's a lot of stuff on that page and I haven't read all of it yet but I thought I saw the abduction word on it somewhere. But like I said, before I ultimately decide what I think of Penniston I'll look at a lot of things.
 
@pair of cats
What an astounding (and sadly typical) misrepresentation. Ridpath's point is not about the military time issue but the fact that the time and date are totally wrong (27 December 1980 at 12:20am instead of 26 December at 3am[the actual time and date]). So when you ask me to be sure to not use refuted skeptical evidence am I to assume that when you say something is refuted you actually mean (as in this case) that you simply don't understand the evidence?

The irony of exposing Phil in a clear demonstration that he can't even understand what he is reading even while he is berating me as inept is the kind of thing that keeps me going!
@Wickerman--hilarious. Hey why don't you say 3000 witnesses--it sounds way better.
Lance

Oh dear. The fact that you have glommed on to the date and time misrepresentation shows my berating of you is deserved. If that is your best and only evidence of some sort of skullduggery then you really are deluded and inept.
Interestingly Lt Col Halt also got the time and date wrong as well. He responds to a question on this matter with...
why have there been variances in the dates given for both incidents? Your memo claims that the dates were on the evening/early morning of the 26th/ 27th and 29th/30th of December, respectively. But elsewhere, in interviews, the dates have been given as 25 to 26 and 28 to 29, he says. So why, why are there differences in those dates?"

Halt replied: 'Well, I tried to go back and recover the police blotter and the security blotter - I think I mentioned to you earlier - to reaffirm the dates. Keep in mind, I wrote the memo several weeks later. And it was not a really important memo. The date was not critical. The critical portion was, you know, what happened and are you interested? And how about getting involved and let’s investigate this. It's possible that I, I put the date down wrong. But I don't believe so. I tried to verify later and the police blotters had been taken from the repository, probably by a, how shall I say, curiosity seeker..."
You seem to think that the dates & times are absolutely crucial ignoring the fact that some kind of incident happened there as described by at least 5 other witnesses over two nights. Are you asking us to simply disregard all of the eyewitness testimony simply because some times and dates were entered wrongly?

Jim Penniston responded to questions relating to the time & date discrepency on 26/04/2010.

Postby jpenniston » Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:53 pm
Yes, I have two immediate questions:

1. Why does your notebook give the date and time of the encounter as 12.20 am on 27 December when all other evidence is that the encounter occurred on 26 December

between 3 and 4 am.

ANSWER: The date and time in my notebook are the actual time and dates of the event. I never reviewed that notebook entry until the late 90's (about five years after

retirement). The notebook was one of hundreds, if not thousands of pages I used to record security police shift notes with. I suppose it is possible the date varied

before I actually noted the exact date. It had no importance to me, considering the magnitude of the event that happened that night, it clearly dwarfed any of the

minor facts. I could care less about a date. We (Enlisted Security Police Supervisors) report things in a specific, and will generalize when talking about them

later. Since then, I see there has been confusion. I can give no reasonable explanation other than what I have previously stated.

2. What is the basis for your statement at the National Press Club that “over 80 Air Force Personnel... witnessed the takeoff.”

ANSWER: Lets do the math. 67 Security and 14 Law Enforcement personnel were working shift that night, based on duty rosters. More were working due to the holiday

schedules and temporary twelve hour shifts. Landing and departure was observed from both RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge. I am not counting in those numbers,

personnel from both bases that were working that night at the base operations, fire departments, maintenance, on-base civilians or off base civilians. That is the

basis for the statement.




Re: Post your questions for Jim Penniston.

Postby jpenniston » Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:12 pm
Why is there such difference between your report of what happened that night and that of John Burroughs? Could it be that the two (or three) of you first had a brief

encounter with the craft (like the one John describes), after which you had your close encounter while you were separated from the other two men?

Answer: The difference is John and the other airmen, were new or junior, and I was the On Scene Security Supervisor. We look at things differently. My main focus,

despite the magnitude of what was happening in front of me. Was to determine if there was a viable threat to base priority resources, weapon delivery systems, or

base personnel. I had limited time to up-channel a security report or determine it non-hostile. My full focus was on what was happening in front of me. Not the men I

posted at various locations.

2. In the SciFi documentary on the Rendlesham Incident, you and Col. Halt discovered that you were talking about different landing sites. Was the landing site that

Col. Halt identified the same as the site with indentation marks that John Burroughs discovered during the first night, or was it a different one that was not

related to the events of the first night?

Answer: No, they were two geographically separate locations. The indentation marks that John discovered were not the same as the night Colonel Halts encounter.

Interesting thing was, both sites had farm houses nearby and the measurements and depressions were identical at both locations. Thus some confusion. A one-in-billion

encounter and why would anyone question two sites. We all assumed it was one location because of all the similarities.

3. Can the strange feeling you got while approaching the craft be compared to walking on a sloped surface or to walking while attached to an elastic cord, as if the

direction or force of gravity was different?

Answer: The area seemed charged, skin and hair standing on end. I do believe some of the physical reaction could have been adrenalin too. No there was no pulling

toward the craft-of-unknown-origin.

4. Could the bright light that emanated from the craft (especially at take-off) be compared to a plasma (like a welding arc)?

Answer: The magnitude of the bright light was as strong as a runway strobe
Sadly you are convinced that, as there is a discrepancy there, that the four other Security Officers eyewitness accounts which show Penniston in attendance at the incident site should be totally discounted as well. Burroughs, Penniston, Chandler, Buran & Cabansag were all in attendance at the first night's incident.
 

Attachments

  • Buran1.jpg
    Buran1.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Buran2.jpg
    Buran2.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 0
BBC Audio-Article on Rendlesham - complete chronology

MOD Note: Merged from separate thread that involves this much longer thread

For those of you who haven't noticed BBC has recently published article about Rendlesham Incident (August 11th) called "The Truth Is Not Out There" by Evan Davis available here:
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8901000/8901936.stm
http://miragemen.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/mirage-men-on-bbc-radio-4s-today/
 
With the connection of recent UFO News from UK and Brazil they have even opened possibility for comments here:
Should We Take UFO Sightings Seriously:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/08/should_we_take_ufo_sightings_m.html
 
Check Jim Penniston's reaction to BBC Piece posted by Dave Haith here:
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m13-012.shtml
 
Evan Davis piece lead to quite a stir and reaction - check here:
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m12-015.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m12-021.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m13-012.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m14-002.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m15-002.shtml
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2010/aug/m15-005.shtml
 
BBC Article is in fact a companion piece of the radio show Today from August 11th.
Audio of the Rendlesham Piece is included in the article. I have also uploaded it here - Download link:
http://tinyurl.com/39chw7a
 
I have also processed 3 hours from the complete show to find possible more references and comments about that piece directly from the studio-I was interested to see how it will be announced.

Here is the extraction
carefuly edited with great care.
 
Radio show:
Today with Evan Davis & John Humphrys
BBC Radio 4, 06:00am Sunday 11th Wednesday 2010
- Besides Rendlesham piece and comments included also is a meteor shower piece so you could compare different approaches between those stories.
 
So you will never have to listen the whole 180 minutes. Here is everything you will need boiled down to 10,49 minutes that counts.
 
Download link
http://tinyurl.com/2u3l6gc
 
And the best gem for the end.
Interview with James Penniston & John Burroughs in resposnse to BBC Piece on Bentwaters - check here:
http://theparanormalcafe.podomatic.com/
http://tinyurl.com/35rbyfs
Download link for Audio Here:
http://theparanormalcafe.podomatic.com/enclosure/2010-08-14T03_05_42-07_00.mp3
or:
http://tinyurl.com/2wfb7z5
 
Host Robert Simcox tried also to get amateur astronomer Ian Ridpath for the show (involved in the BBC piece) where he received this response from him:
"Thank you for the invitation but this isn't my constituency, I'm afraid".
 
He also tried to get Mark Pilkington (author of a new book Mirage Men - also involved in the BBC piece) who suggested to Rob to contact Ridpath.

Best Wishes
 
 
BBC Audio-Article on Rendlesham - complete chronology

At the anniversary this December when a whole crowd of witnesses get together and go out to the location, apparently the author of the BBC article agreed to go with.

The reason the author is going with is so he can attempt to explain what all the Rendlesham witnesses saw in person.

The BBC author has a tough task of attempting to make his case. His case so far has no evidence to back it up.
 
I've ran into several more articles now saying that it was Halt, not Pennistion, who got the date wrong. The Wiki for this case even says that. So the date thing is a non-issue to me. But I do find the other allegations against Penniston troubling and am still reading things.
 
Just read what the skeptabunkers are posting, then giggle and move on.

The Skeptabunkers are their own worst enemy.

The lighthouse theory has been disproven 3,542 times.

----------

Skeptabunkers lose everytime because they lack any data or evidence.

I don't know why they enjoy losing so much.
 
Here is a pretty bizarre hypnosis session excerpt with John Burroughs (He talks really fast while he is under.):


The key part is at the end where he says they'd been gone for 45 minutes. The more and more I look into the Burroughs/Penniston sighting the stranger it seems to get. It seems like it's getting into abduction territory or maybe something with nearly as much high strangeness and while that may explain the confused memories and initial contradictions I know that such a claim is going to make the skeptics roll their eyes even more. :(

---------- Post added at 05:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 AM ----------

And apparently Burroughs talked about going under hypnosis right here on the Paracast:

June 21, 2009 John Burroughs and Peter Robbins | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
Just read what the skeptabunkers are posting, then giggle and move on.

The Skeptabunkers are their own worst enemy.

The lighthouse theory has been disproven 3,542 times.

----------

Skeptabunkers lose everytime because they lack any data or evidence.

I don't know why they enjoy losing so much.

What makes me giggle is that we're focusing on the light house being a "silly" explanation, when the alternate one being argued for by some is even more ridiculous (alien space craft). As I've said, the light house is one possible explanation - not necessarily the correct one. However, Dunning's analysis of the actual audio footage with the blinking of the light house is really interesting. The call outs of the blinking corresponds perfectly with the lighthouse - but that can be coincidence.
Whether the lighthouse is right or wrong I don't know, but alien space craft is even less likely since there's no proof that if there even was an aircraft, that is was from another planet. That's the jump in logic that bothers. You can say the lighthouse is a jump in logic as well, but at least we know for a fact that the lighthouse is there.

So, argue all you want that the lighthouse is wrong - that's fine and you may be right. But please, don't jump to alien space craft, which is what some people are arguing for, and don't BS me and say I'm the one that brought it up.
 
What makes me giggle is that we're focusing on the light house being a "silly" explanation, when the alternate one being argued for by some is even more ridiculous (alien space craft). As I've said, the light house is one possible explanation - not necessarily the correct one. However, Dunning's analysis of the actual audio footage with the blinking of the light house is really interesting. The call outs of the blinking corresponds perfectly with the lighthouse - but that can be coincidence.
Whether the lighthouse is right or wrong I don't know, but alien space craft is even less likely since there's no proof that if there even was an aircraft, that is was from another planet. That's the jump in logic that bothers. You can say the lighthouse is a jump in logic as well, but at least we know for a fact that the lighthouse is there.

So, argue all you want that the lighthouse is wrong - that's fine and you may be right. But please, don't jump to alien space craft, which is what some people are arguing for, and don't BS me and say I'm the one that brought it up.


Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that can MORPHE into a triangle?
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that leaves radiation evidence?
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that flies into the air
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that leaves 3 indentions in the ground




Lighthouses are not 15 foot long triangles.
 
What makes me giggle is that we're focusing on the light house being a "silly" explanation, when the alternate one being argued for by some is even more ridiculous (alien space craft). As I've said, the light house is one possible explanation - not necessarily the correct one. However, Dunning's analysis of the actual audio footage with the blinking of the light house is really interesting. The call outs of the blinking corresponds perfectly with the lighthouse - but that can be coincidence.
Whether the lighthouse is right or wrong I don't know, but alien space craft is even less likely since there's no proof that if there even was an aircraft, that is was from another planet. That's the jump in logic that bothers. You can say the lighthouse is a jump in logic as well, but at least we know for a fact that the lighthouse is there.

So, argue all you want that the lighthouse is wrong - that's fine and you may be right. But please, don't jump to alien space craft, which is what some people are arguing for, and don't BS me and say I'm the one that brought it up.

Every time you talk I'm always amazed at how you put forward this whole thing that nothing can be real unless science has confirmed it. It makes me wonder if prior to the discovery by scientists of oh, let's say Mars that it failed to exist. Did it pop into existence at the moment science discovered it? Were these events simultaneous? I mean, wouldn't it have to be that way? Because to hear you talk it seems like you believe that nothing can exist unless science knows about it. Forget about whether or not it's been proven or not. You act as though not even a possibility can exist unless already confirmed. It seems that in your world an answer must precede any questioning. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that aliens have not been proven. But to claim it isn't even possible is just plain weird.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ----------

Btw, I've been listening to this episode of the Paracast and Burroughs appears to be claiming an encounter not with aliens but with time travelers. Apparently Penniston also was hypnotized and thinks it was time travelers. And it's being said on here that Larry Warren has always thought it was time travelers. Well, time travelers are probably just as bizarre and unproven as aliens but you hate the idea of aliens so much I just wanted to let you know that the Rendlsham gang might be leaning in the direction of time travelers more than aliens. I really don't have much of an opinion about the time traveler theory except that it would make some sense of two things: That they look somewhat like us and that the whole thing is such a big damned secret. But not saying I think that's what it is. My mind is open on the matter.

---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

Some details of the Penniston regression:

During the second hypnotic regression, the psychologist takes Penniston back to the debriefing by two Office of Special Investigation (OSI) agents, and he recounts the scene and events just as he recalled them consciously. But then, according to Penniston's memory under hypnosis, those two agents leave the room and two other officials, one American and one with a British accent, come into the room and ask Penniston to again recount the story. They ask him, he says, if he would mind being given a shot of something and then telling his story again while they tape-record it. Penniston agrees, "if that's what it takes." But he also tells his interrogators that he doesn't like shots.
In a dramatic and striking scene on the videotape, Penniston lifts his arm for a shot of sodium penthathol and the agents question him repeatedly about the trajectory of the craft, its speed and approach. Penniston calmly repeats over and over that he did not see any of that, that the craft was already on the ground when he saw it.
The interrogation continues, and Penniston answers the officials' questions about the craft itself and the symbols he found on one side. He recalls the two agents talking to themselves, saying there was "no point in going further," that they knew what had happened and now the question was how to contain the situation. "They know about what I've seen. They knew it already," Penniston says under hypnosis.
As the regression continues, the psychologist begins questioning Penniston about possible "beings" in the craft and he begins to answer. On the tape, it seems that Penniston knows the answer to just about every question the psychologist asks. "I look at this and find it hard to believe it's me," said Penniston during one viewing of the tape.
Under hypnosis, Penniston describes the alien visitors, saying that they are "travelers from our future." They have been coming here in teams, each team assigned a different "tasking," a different mission. Each team targets certain people when it comes back to our time, rather than just encountering people randomly.
When the psychologist asks him why, Penniston -- still under hypnosis -- says, "They've got a serious problem. The world isn't like it is now. It's darker, in bad shape. It's very polluted and much colder." He goes on to recount that the visitors from the future also have serious social problems and difficulties with reproduction. Accordingly, one of the travelers' main tasks is to obtain sperm and eggs and chromosomes in order to keep the species alive. The species in question, he says in response to the psychologist's question, is "us. They're humans."
"The problem here," says Penniston to Rayl after the videotape ends, "is I don't know if this information is real in any sense, if it's been planted in my mind or if any of it is actually rooted in truth as we know it."
OMNI asked David Jacobs, one of the country's leading abduction researchers, to view and comment on the videotape of Penniston's second hypnosis session. Jacobs, history professor at Temple University, has conducted more than 600 hypnotic regressions and has written two books on the phenomenon, Secret Life and a new book, tentatively entitled The Threat, due in June 1997 from Simon & Schuster. Based on his research, Jacobs believes that the alien abduction phenomenon is real, that people really are being taken aboard spacecraft and subjected to often cruel medical and genetic examinations.
"The hypnosis started out fine," Jacobs says of the Penniston session. "The psychologist didn't ask a lot of probing questions. She did ask a few leading questions, but he didn't bite. It was okay. I feel quite certain that they, the military agents, did get him up into the office for an interrogation and that they did inject him with sodium pentathol, put him on a table, and ask him all those questions. It was quite a striking scene, and it all had the ring of truth to me. In other words, it appeared that this is exactly what happened. It had a beginning, a middle, and an end and each part led logically to the next up until the sodium pentathol. Once that was administered, it was chaos as far as I was concerned.
"He zoomed off into a channeling mode, and the psychologist didn't recognize it," contends Jacobs. "He simply dissociated, which is what happens when people begin to channel. The information is coming from one part of his brain, and the other part hears it and think it's coming from the outside. And suddenly he knows the answer to everything, as the psychologist begins to ask him one question after another about the beings. He knew the answer to absolutely everything, and only one question was he unable to answer. This is a certainty of channeling. It's a psychological phenomenon, and all the information that comes from this is internally generated. If the hypnotist isn't real experienced and doesn't recognize this, they can easily fall into this trap, and this I believe was a classic situation of just that."
Whether the information recounted under hypnosis is genuine or not, Penniston's account of what he consciously remembers fills in most of the remaining blanks as to what actually occurred at Bentwaters on that first mysterious night in late 1980. Still, two questions remain: Where did the craft come from? Who did it belong to?
The Air Force refuses comment on all aspects of the Bentwaters case.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mi6/penniston.html

So Jacobs seems to think that the interview and sodium pentothol part was real but that much of what came afterward might have been a fantasy. Take all of this as you will.
 
Every time you talk I'm always amazed at how you put forward this whole thing that nothing can be real unless science has confirmed it. It makes me wonder if prior to the discovery by scientists of oh, let's say Mars that it failed to exist. Did it pop into existence at the moment science discovered it? Were these events simultaneous? I mean, wouldn't it have to be that way? Because to hear you talk it seems like you believe that nothing can exist unless science knows about it. Forget about whether or not it's been proven or not. You act as though not even a possibility can exist unless already confirmed. It seems that in your world an answer must precede any questioning. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that aliens have not been proven. But to claim it isn't even possible is just plain weird.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 AM ----------

Btw, I've been listening to this episode of the Paracast and Burroughs appears to be claiming an encounter not with aliens but with time travelers. Apparently Penniston also was hypnotized and thinks it was time travelers. And it's being said on here that Larry Warren has always thought it was time travelers. Well, time travelers are probably just as bizarre and unproven as aliens but you hate the idea of aliens so much I just wanted to let you know that the Rendlsham gang might be leaning in the direction of time travelers more than aliens. I really don't have much of an opinion about the time traveler theory except that it would make some sense of two things: That they look somewhat like us and that the whole thing is such a big damned secret. But not saying I think that's what it is. My mind is open on the matter.

---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

Some details of the Penniston regression:



http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mi6/penniston.html

So Jacobs seems to think that the interview and sodium pentothol part was real but that much of what came afterward might have been a fantasy. Take all of this as you will.

Where did I say that aliens don't exist? I just say that I don't believe that they are visiting us because right now we have no proof of it. I'm of the opinion that there's probably intelligent life in the universe. Time travelers - we have no proof of that either, but that's interesting since theoretically (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) time travel is possible. With both those ideas we can't say they aren't 100% possible, but we can't say that they fit into the way we understand our reality at this time either, right? I hope you can accept that. Anything is possible, and we definitely have not discovered everything.
You sound like a smart guy Wickerman, but you don't need to resort to a strawman argument like the "Mars" one that you put forth. There's a MAJOR difference between discovery and something popping into existence. Science is finding out new things all the time, and revising itself, that's the point.

As for this Rendlesham Forest case - can we agree that we were not there and that we don't know for sure what happened? There are so many variables. What I do know is that I would rather say that they mistook something for an aircraft, or that it was an actual aircraft (not alien or time traveler), or it may have been a lighthouse depending on where they were standing, or a meteor, or a Russian rocket, because all those things are known to exist and could have been part of what happened. What we can't say though is that it was aliens or time travelers and accept it since there's nothing to prove the existence of those solutions to this case.

One thing that we can all agree on is that something spooked those men that night. We don't know what it is for sure. We can chose to accept the explanation that we think is best, understanding that chances are it isn't the full story.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that can MORPHE into a triangle?
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that leaves radiation evidence?
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that flies into the air
Show me a LIGHTHOUSE that leaves 3 indentions in the ground




Lighthouses are not 15 foot long triangles.

I can't show you that. None of those things are possible right now. Please let me know what you think they saw, and please show me how you came to that conclusion.
Like I have said, the light house is one possible solution, and the way it is explained makes sense to me, but I maintain that it can be wrong. You did read that right, where I said that it isn't necessarily the right solution - I think I mentioned that several times before. Why are you so closed minded to looking at other possible solutions.

P.S. I had to say the closed minded (or is it close minded) thing - that BS tactic is used on me all the time.
 
I woke up this AM around 2:30 and walked outside to meditate and think and commune with the univererse. Anyway, being a modern man after a time I got lonesome for my Ipod and started back in the house. ;) But, I did look up to admire the view and I saw a "shooting star." It was awesome. Now, I "know" what it was and I understand it wasn't visitors from "outer space" But, it got me to thinking about "psudeo skeptics" just a little bit. I thought "Ya know there is no problem with me seeing a "shooting star" Nobody will jump down my throat and yell it's not scientific. But, suppose we had never "observed" one before with the naked eye. Then I said I saw it. Wonder what a good skeptic would say? I came up with some stuff.

Was there a street lamp around? "well yeah" Ohhh, then isn't it more possible that you saw a "lamp" than a light in the sky? Hmmmm?

Was the moon out? "well I didn't see it"..... Still isn't it more likely that you saw a reflection of the moon in the clouds than a light in the sky?

Are you near sighted? "Well, yeah." ....Ohhhh, then you get floaters in your eyes. So what must have happened was you looked at the stars and shut your eyes and the "streak" you thought you saw was a floater. See? It's just logical.

Do you believe in God? "well yeah." OH really? Well then you have a built in "santa claus" I don't wanna die complex and the evolutionary trigger in your brain kicked in so you could make sense out of a cold souless universe.

"Well, are you gonna at least look at the evidence? maybe actually start a study?" ....Are you kidding me? We're sceintist man! We don't "study" things that break the "laws" of what we already know! What are you a frickin creationist?

Anyway, this was just for fun and I am just trying to say that if you want to "debunk" something it's easy to do. Be it in the name of science or the name of God. If you want to beleive it's also easy to do. I honestly don't beleive in ufo's as far as nuts and bolts craft in the sky. But, it's not because science or religion tell me it's impossible. Impossible is just a name for something we haven't figured out how to catogorize yet. Hope this is taken in the "light" way I meant it. I am trying to make a point but this is in no way a "scientific" or "religious" study...Just me drinking coffee and getting ready for work.

Peace.
 
I woke up this AM around 2:30 and walked outside to meditate and think and commune with the univererse. Anyway, being a modern man after a time I got lonesome for my Ipod and started back in the house. ;) But, I did look up to admire the view and I saw a "shooting star." It was awesome. Now, I "know" what it was and I understand it wasn't visitors from "outer space" But, it got me to thinking about "psudeo skeptics" just a little bit. I thought "Ya know there is no problem with me seeing a "shooting star" Nobody will jump down my throat and yell it's not scientific. But, suppose we had never "observed" one before with the naked eye. Then I said I saw it. Wonder what a good skeptic would say? I came up with some stuff.

Was there a street lamp around? "well yeah" Ohhh, then isn't it more possible that you saw a "lamp" than a light in the sky? Hmmmm?

Was the moon out? "well I didn't see it"..... Still isn't it more likely that you saw a reflection of the moon in the clouds than a light in the sky?

Are you near sighted? "Well, yeah." ....Ohhhh, then you get floaters in your eyes. So what must have happened was you looked at the stars and shut your eyes and the "streak" you thought you saw was a floater. See? It's just logical.

Do you believe in God? "well yeah." OH really? Well then you have a built in "santa claus" I don't wanna die complex and the evolutionary trigger in your brain kicked in so you could make sense out of a cold souless universe.

"Well, are you gonna at least look at the evidence? maybe actually start a study?" ....Are you kidding me? We're sceintist man! We don't "study" things that break the "laws" of what we already know! What are you a frickin creationist?

Anyway, this was just for fun and I am just trying to say that if you want to "debunk" something it's easy to do. Be it in the name of science or the name of God. If you want to beleive it's also easy to do. I honestly don't beleive in ufo's as far as nuts and bolts craft in the sky. But, it's not because science or religion tell me it's impossible. Impossible is just a name for something we haven't figured out how to catogorize yet. Hope this is taken in the "light" way I meant it. I am trying to make a point but this is in no way a "scientific" or "religious" study...Just me drinking coffee and getting ready for work.

Peace.

I know what you're trying to say, but I can't agree with the way you paint people that think like me, skeptic if you will. There was a point when we didn't understand shooting stars, and we created explanations that were wrong. After some time, science came up with exactly what they were.
So, with what we think of as paranormal, science has come up with some explanations of some stuff, yours being an absolutely perfect example. Do you see what I'm getting at?
 
Back
Top