Clueless article on "Rendlesham Forest"

[Sean Elifritz]

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.

My God, I hate it when that happens. Typed up a bunch of stuff and then lost it all because of a forum error.

Try this again. It has nothing to do with a strawman anything. You're way of thinking truly confounds me. It's like we're intellectual opposites. I'm always questioning things and don't really care what official people like scientists have to say. Sure, their input helps but at the end of the day a brilliant Phd scientist can be just as full of shit about something as some hood passed out in a bowl of chili at a biker bar. When they say there are no aliens visiting here that means about as much to me as when someone tells me rocks can't fall from the sky. Oh wait, that was scientists too. They can be completely wrong about things and often are. But often I get the impression because of things you say that you are different, almost like you wait for permission from science before you can decide what you should think about something. Maybe that's inaccurate but you sure come off like that a lot of the time. Yin and yang.

And it amuses me that scientists are so confident that if an alien race were secretly visiting here that they wouldn't be able to pull if off without science finding out about it. Pretty egotistical. If a type 3 civilization like Michio Kaku likes to talk about is visiting here there is no flippin' way almighty science would know unless they wanted them to know (They probably wouldn't even be able to catch a type 1 in the act.). Just look at some of the aspects of the phenomenon that are commonly reported: walking through walls, invisibility, mind control, something akin to paralysis, craft passing through solid material and being able to change shape and size at will, memory erasing, etc.. Even the most common themes of UFO reports make science fiction films pale in comparison. The guys in Star Trek and Star Wars seem like cavemen compared to these accounts. Now just for the sake of argument pretend those reports are real and that the perpetrators don't want to be proven. How in the hell is science going to be able to prove it when something like that is deliberately avoiding it? They wouldn't be able to, simple as that.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------

Speaking of Kaku, that guy is a scientist and is open-minded about all kinds of things. Why can't science-loving debunkers pick him as a role model rather than guys like Menzel or Dunning?

 

[justcurious]

... almost like you wait for permission from science before you can decide what you should think about something.

And it amuses me that scientists are so confident that if an alien race were secretly visiting here that they wouldn't be able to pull if off without science finding out about it. Pretty egotistical. If a type 3 civilization like Michio Kaku likes to talk about is visiting here there is no flippin' way almighty science would know unless they wanted them to know (They probably wouldn't even be able to catch a type 1 in the act.). Just look at some of the aspects of the phenomenon that are commonly reported: walking through walls, invisibility, mind control, something akin to paralysis, craft passing through solid material and being able to change shape and size at will, memory erasing, etc.. Even the most common themes of UFO reports make science fiction films pale in comparison. The guys in Star Trek and Star Wars seem like cavemen compared to these accounts. Now just for the sake of argument pretend those reports are real and that the perpetrators don't want to be proven. How in the hell is science going to be able to prove it when something like that is deliberately avoiding it? They wouldn't be able to, simple as that.

Well put !

And that reminds me of something already posted a couple of months ago, but some don't seem to get the implications of it :

L'Aigle Meteorite.

History: A meteorite shower of more than 3,000 fragments that rained down on the town of L'Aigle in Normandy, France, 70 km west of Paris, in the early afternoon of Apr. 26, 1803. It proved to be a turned point in the understanding of meteorites and their origins. Until this time, the idea that rocks came from space seemed fantastic, and even witnessed meteorite falls were treated with scepticism. But, upon hearing of the extraordinary events at L'Aigle, the French Academy of Sciences sent Jean-Baptise Biot to investigate. His passionate paper describing how these stones must undoubtedly be of extraterrestrial origin effectively gave birth to the science of meteoritics. [J.B.Biot, Mém. Inst. France, 1806, 7, (Histoire), p.224; J.B.Biot, Ann. Phys., 1804, 16, p.44]

Science can back-up phenomena that it has studied, that's its function and purpose, fine, but I think it is getting beyond its role and may be violating its own principles when its rejects phenomena without having given them proper consideration. And this is the problem that ufology is facing now.

Got it ? Centuries lost before actually studying a widely reported phenomenon because of fanatical misuse of skepticism! If you can't learn from your mistakes, you won't learn from your successes.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

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.

Very good post. You made your point without getting condescending in any way. That's something I've long needed work on.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Speaking of Kaku, that guy is a scientist and is open-minded about all kinds of things. Why can't science-loving debunkers pick him as a role model rather than guys like Menzel or Dunning?

I'm assuming you've read Kaku, so it seems like a strange statement. He's completely in line with my way of thinking, and I tend to agree with him pretty much across the board. I have several of his books and he's a skeptic as well - he even has his own collector's card: Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Skeptic Trumps: Michio Kaku
Kaku, like I do, believes that you can't completely discount the possibility that some of these sightings can be extra-terrestrials, but there's no proof to say it is so.

Here's a quote by him from 2005:

"The fundamental mistake people make when thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence, is to assume that they are just like us, except a few hundred years more advanced. I say, open your mind, open your conciousness to the possibility that they are a million years ahead of us". [...]
"You simply cannot dismiss the possibility that some of these UFO sightings, are sightings of some object created by an advanced civilization; a civilization far out in space, a civilization perhaps millions of years ahead of us in technology. You simply cannot discount that possibility"

You can't discount it - he's right. But in this case, you also can't discount the more mundane possibilities either, which is what some people seem to be doing.

I've laid out the way I think - just because we have no proof of alien visitations here does not mean that they don't exist. However, I avoid using that as a hypothesis to what happened in Rendlesham Forest for that same reason. There's no good proof that aliens or some other unknown, undiscovered phenomena was the cause. That's it, point finale!
You bring up about how science was wrong about so many things, and yes, that's totally true. Guess what, science found proof that rocks do fall from the sky, theories were formed, proof was found, and now we know EXACTLY the cause. Science changes to fit with the facts - that's why I trust it. You seem to think I'm some sort of robot or something - I'm not. I just go where the facts lead me. When an alien space ship shows up, makes contact in a way that has absolutely no other explanations, leaves proof, and we come to the conclusion that it is in fact extra-terrestrials, I'll be glad to admit it. And when that happens, the first question I hope they get asked is "Were you guys responsible for all those abductions and sightings?" That's when we'll know the truth, and when closed minded true believers will say, "Oh, well that was a set of other aliens."

Thanks.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I'm assuming you've read Kaku, so it seems like a strange statement. He's completely in line with my way of thinking, and I tend to agree with him pretty much across the board. I have several of his books and he's a skeptic as well - he even has his own collector's card: Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Skeptic Trumps: Michio Kaku
Kaku, like I do, believes that you can't completely discount the possibility that some of these sightings can be extra-terrestrials, but there's no proof to say it is so.

Here's a quote by him from 2005:


You can't discount it - he's right. But in this case, you also can't discount the more mundane possibilities either, which is what some people seem to be doing.

I've laid out the way I think - just because we have no proof of alien visitations here does not mean that they don't exist. However, I avoid using that as a hypothesis to what happened in Rendlesham Forest for that same reason. There's no good proof that aliens or some other unknown, undiscovered phenomena was the cause. That's it, point finale!
You bring up about how science was wrong about so many things, and yes, that's totally true. Guess what, science found proof that rocks do fall from the sky, theories were formed, proof was found, and now we know EXACTLY the cause. Science changes to fit with the facts - that's why I trust it. You seem to think I'm some sort of robot or something - I'm not. I just go where the facts lead me. When an alien space ship shows up, makes contact in a way that has absolutely no other explanations, leaves proof, and we come to the conclusion that it is in fact extra-terrestrials, I'll be glad to admit it. And when that happens, the first question I hope they get asked is "Were you guys responsible for all those abductions and sightings?" That's when we'll know the truth, and when closed minded true believers will say, "Oh, well that was a set of other aliens."

Thanks.

Well, if the abductions I've read about are true and those responsible suddenly make themselves public in a way that scientists cannot deny (And I'm sure that if it does happen the group of scientists staring at the craft will spend at least an hour trying to assure each other that they're really just seeing the world's worse case of swamp gas in history before they finally compose themselves enough to be able to ask a question.) and are given a yes to the abduction question we could very well already be screwed at that point.

 

[justcurious]

I'm assuming you've read Kaku, so it seems like a strange statement. He's completely in line with my way of thinking, and I tend to agree with him pretty much across the board. I have several of his books and he's a skeptic as well - he even has his own collector's card: Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Skeptic Trumps: Michio Kaku
Kaku, like I do, believes that you can't completely discount the possibility that some of these sightings can be extra-terrestrials, but there's no proof to say it is so.

Here's a quote by him from 2005:


You can't discount it - he's right. But in this case, you also can't discount the more mundane possibilities either, which is what some people seem to be doing.

I've laid out the way I think - just because we have no proof of alien visitations here does not mean that they don't exist. However, I avoid using that as a hypothesis to what happened in Rendlesham Forest for that same reason. There's no good proof that aliens or some other unknown, undiscovered phenomena was the cause. That's it, point finale!
You bring up about how science was wrong about so many things, and yes, that's totally true. Guess what, science found proof that rocks do fall from the sky, theories were formed, proof was found, and now we know EXACTLY the cause. Science changes to fit with the facts - that's why I trust it. You seem to think I'm some sort of robot or something - I'm not. I just go where the facts lead me. When an alien space ship shows up, makes contact in a way that has absolutely no other explanations, leaves proof, and we come to the conclusion that it is in fact extra-terrestrials, I'll be glad to admit it. And when that happens, the first question I hope they get asked is "Were you guys responsible for all those abductions and sightings?" That's when we'll know the truth, and when closed minded true believers will say, "Oh, well that was a set of other aliens."

Thanks.

Gawd!

Science ought to study this particular lighthouse very closely, I reckon.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, if the abductions I've read about are true and those responsible suddenly make themselves public in a way that scientists cannot deny (And I'm sure that if it does happen the group of scientists staring at the craft will spend at least an hour trying to assure each other that they're really just seeing the world's worse case of swamp gas in history before they finally compose themselves enough to be able to ask a question.) and are given a yes to the abduction question we could very well already be screwed at that point.

I know you're only joking, but why do you need to paint scientists in such a bad light? They're real people with analytical minds that created the computer you're using to communicate with an asshole skeptic (I can call myself that, you can't )in Montreal.

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------

Gawd!

Science ought to study this particular lighthouse very closely, I reckon.

You're really not getting past that lighthouse, eh?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

To elaborate on my previous post: If an alien species ever shows up to meet in an official kind of way, like in the movie Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, hopefully the beings look absolutely nothing like the ones described in current UFO reports. It seems to me that if the greys or mantises or whatever are real and have been conducting abductions in secrecy for at least 60 years and were to suddenly make themselves public out of the blue it could be for reasons we wouldn't like very much. But hey, at least I'd get to say, "I told ya' so" right before being assimilated.

 

[justcurious]

I know you're only joking, but why do you need to paint scientists in such a bad light? They're real people with analytical minds that created the computer you're using to communicate with an asshole skeptic (I can call myself that, you can't )in Montreal.

You answered your own question...

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I know you're only joking, but why do you need to paint scientists in such a bad light? They're real people with analytical minds that created the computer you're using to communicate with an asshole skeptic (I can call myself that, you can't )in Montreal.

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------



You're really not getting past that lighthouse, eh?

Well, if it ever happens I think the common man will take the news just fine. And contrary to what some think religions will just absorb it into their belief systems. It will likely be the scientists and academics jumping off of bridges. From the Brookings Report:

It has been speculated that, of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature, rather than with the understanding and expression of man. Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories at the very least, if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to earth scientists." – page 225, n.34

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, if it ever happens I think the common man will take the news just fine. And contrary to what some think religions will just absorb it into their belief systems. It will likely be the scientists and academics jumping off of bridges. From the Brookings Report:

That makes a lot of sense. Extremely analytical people like scientists and engineers could have a problem since they're the ones who create a lot of the things we use everyday. Although I love science, my academic background is firmly in the fine arts.

 

[SLVA]

The time travel notion, I'd like to explore this more with people on here. Before I throw out unfounded hunches and have em Flamed from a great height. I'd just like to ask, is there a place on the forum where it's OK or more appropriate to let it all hang out / stretch out and talk without the usual thread derailment or polarisation ? I'm on a little iPhone screen so I've been unable to find this info on the FAQ's section. I respect the rationalist approach of some people here think it's pretty sensible and well put most times. I'm not trying to escape the rules of free speech, but I resist discussing stuff lately because I don't wish to engage in loggerheads with others all the time. It's kinda obvious what will happen three or for comments deep. Also where should one post on the forum a space where members could lay out their position on where they stand on various aspects of the topic? I tried to do this on a thread about where we all draw the line and was frozen out. Thinking I'm breaching etiquette just results in me not posting at all. Which is fine, cos I know there are experts on here, but I wanna discuss the Paranormal with other listeners.

 

[Hotkafka]

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."
-Carl Sagan

I've got a problem with this statement. It seems to suggest that Skeptics have the ultimate patent on deep thoughts. And I suppose by mentioning religion, he's inferring (or self-appointing) a certain very slim cadre of religious thinkers, i.e. those that don't believe in the type of miracles that are typically blooming in classic religious texts, i.e. the Virgin Birth, walking on water (both by Jesus and Buddha), the Burning Bush, Muhammad splitting the moon, etc.

I'm afraid Carl Sagan's statement tightropes the very requirements of being "deep nonsense."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The time travel notion, I'd like to explore this more with people on here. Before I throw out unfounded hunches and have em Flamed from a great height. I'd just like to ask, is there a place on the forum where it's OK or more appropriate to let it all hang out / stretch out and talk without the usual thread derailment or polarisation ? I'm on a little iPhone screen so I've been unable to find this info on the FAQ's section. I respect the rationalist approach of some people here think it's pretty sensible and well put most times. I'm not trying to escape the rules of free speech, but I resist discussing stuff lately because I don't wish to engage in loggerheads with others all the time. It's kinda obvious what will happen three or for comments deep. Also where should one post on the forum a space where members could lay out their position on where they stand on various aspects of the topic? I tried to do this on a thread about where we all draw the line and was frozen out. Thinking I'm breaching etiquette just results in me not posting at all. Which is fine, cos I know there are experts on here, but I wanna discuss the Paranormal with other listeners.

I think I started that "draw the line" thread, and I think I got some flak for it. I'd say you can start that thread in the same section as this one. This thread has gone this way because we're discussing a specific case and people have different ways of looking at it. In the end I find that most debates in this forum end better than I've seen around the internet. I mean look at the exchange between wickerman and I - we pretty much totally disagree, but I find he kept it civil, and if I took offense to something I mentioned it and vice-versa. It's important to have a healthy debate with people that don't see things the way you do. At least I think so and it's why I'm here even though I'm sure I rub some people the wrong way.

You can always go ahead and post what you think, but it's always a good idea to support your thoughts. For example, if you post that you're a contactee and the aliens are writing through your keyboard, expect for someone to jump in and tell you you're full of it since people here don't buy into garbage like that as was seen a few weeks ago. So, if you want to posit something, go right ahead - I see that happening all the time here. There are tons of ideas you can throw around. However, you can't stop people from disagreeing with you as long as they stay within the forum rules.

As always, if you have questions, please PM me.

 

[Hotkafka]

@Angelo
"For example, if you post that you're a contactee and the aliens are writing through your keyboard, expect for someone to jump in and tell you you're full of it since people here don't buy into garbage like that as was seen a few weeks ago."

What thread are you referring to? I'd think I'd like to peruse it, could make for some entertaining reading.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

@Angelo
"For example, if you post that you're a contactee and the aliens are writing through your keyboard, expect for someone to jump in and tell you you're full of it since people here don't buy into garbage like that as was seen a few weeks ago."

What thread are you referring to? I'd think I'd like to peruse it, could make for some entertaining reading.

This is it - ET Contactee here

 

[Ron Collins]

It has always been in place. Always! The lighthouse employees have confirmed this.

I agree as it is the single thing that UFO Hunters ever did to help Ufology. However, perhaps we should ask one of our english listeners to try and get the original blueprints of the lighthouse. Anyone want to volunteer?

 

[Ron Collins]

Oh yeah, it's definitely more ridiculous than aliens being responsible for an aircraft landing there, as seems to be insinuated by the witnesses (The Rendlesham Forest Incident). So, the lighthouse may or may not be the culprit, but at least we know for a fact that there was a light house in the area that night, along with a couple of meteors and a Russian rocket.
All I'm saying, as with all these types of events, why must we create a solution (aliens or unknown aerial phenomena) , when there are many possible solutions available known to exist in the physical world.
That's it - I'm not trying to debunk (although there's nothing wrong with that), but to show that other explanations are possible.

I think you also have to take in account the estimations of altitude and proximity that halt and others have stated. These seem to suggest that the observable phenomenon was much more local than these other events. I agree that it is interesting and the Dunning report has some merit. But, once again, we are stuck with human eyes and perceptions of the phenomenon.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think you also have to take in account the estimations of altitude and proximity that halt and others have stated. These seem to suggest that the observable phenomenon was much more local than these other events. I agree that it is interesting and the Dunning report has some merit. But, once again, we are stuck with human eyes and perceptions of the phenomenon.

Absolutely Ron - when we have nothing but eyewitness accounts, some of which seem to differ when they were initially reported, we're stuck with total speculation. I tend to drift to the side that supports less fantastical solutions, although as always, I maintain that that are not necessarily the correct answer. They are just more plausible than an alien spacecraft or time travelers.

 

[justcurious]

Absolutely Ron - when we have nothing but eyewitness accounts...

Again, eyewitness accounts were telling us that stones were falling from the sky several centuries before science judged necessary to take the idea seriously. Actually it took a whole city to be destroyed by a meteor shower. And what we may be facing now could be much more serious, do I have to draw a sketch ?

I'm kinda fed up to be pointed the nearest light house when a whole military base is reporting things like this, in this case and thousands of other cases. One of the guys who got close to the thing had his eyes bleeding for several months after. Anybody who thinks that the lighthouse is involved in the incident ought to dismantle it stone by stone to find out how it could engender such a reaction on people who's very training, job and purpose is to keep a cool and stable mind in any situations, for the safety of the rest of us.

Just read Lt Col Halt memo, does anybody realise what it must be for a man in his position to report such events up his chain of command ? Skepticism is the worse excuse to take people for stupid, a bit of respect for them please.