Clueless article on "Rendlesham Forest"

[exo_doc]

Why keep bringing up the lighthouse?
As has been pointed out on several posts:

How can a lighthouse create a diamond shaped, apparently metallic object with characters, symbols, or designs on it that can be physically touched?
How can a lighthouse leave imprints in the ground?
How can a lighthouse make retinal burns?
How can a lighthouse raise the background radiation count in that one area?

I get really eaten up when skeptics stick with one point and drive it into the ground as the catch-all explanation for some anomalous event, all the while ignoring other points/evidence/facts about the event as if they aren't there; points that usually invalidate or at least greatly weakens the explanation postulated. If skeptics are really after the truth as most claim, why do they do this?

And don't forget, there were cassette tapes made during one of those encounters, and listening to the ongoing dialogue on it you could tell these trained professional seasoned military security specialists were spooked, worried and shaken.
As a US Army veteran, I know for a fact a flashing light from five miles away is NOT going to frighten anyone, much less armed military sentries.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Why keep bringing up the lighthouse?
As has been pointed out on several posts:

How can a lighthouse create a diamond shaped, apparently metallic object with characters, symbols, or designs on it that can be physically touched?
How can a lighthouse leave imprints in the ground?
How can a lighthouse make retinal burns?
How can a lighthouse raise the background radiation count in that one area?

I get really eaten up when skeptics stick with one point and drive it into the ground as the catch-all explanation for some anomalous event, all the while ignoring other points/evidence/facts about the event as if they aren't there; points that usually invalidate or at least greatly weakens the explanation postulated. If skeptics are really after the truth as most claim, why do they do this?

And don't forget, there were cassette tapes made during one of those encounters, and listening to the ongoing dialogue on it you could tell these trained professional seasoned military security specialists were spooked, worried and shaken.
As a US Army veteran, I know for a fact a flashing light from five miles away is NOT going to frighten anyone, much less armed military sentries.

As I have said, the lighthouse is one possible explanation, among others. What's the harm in putting forth explanations that are based in reality, as opposed to turning to the paranormal?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

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?

I think there are two significant contributions they made. Interviewing that lighthouse keeper (Amazing nobody ever thought to do that.) and debunking all of the NASA videos that show white objects with a hole in the middle and a wedge cut out of the side. With the latter their experiment clearly showed those weren't UFOs but a quirk with the cameras NASA uses. UFO Hunters was actually a decent show the first season and an OK one the second. It's the third season where it got embarrassing.

 

[exo_doc]

As I have said, the lighthouse is one possible explanation, among others. What's the harm in putting forth explanations that are based in reality, as opposed to turning to the paranormal?

Lol! Gee whiz Angel. Ok. There is nothing wrong with putting forth rational, logical explanations for seemingly anomalous events. Occam's razor has it's place.
But don't you think such explanations should include all available data?
The lighthouse just doesn't work for almost all of these series of events.
Even taking into account meteors and Russian rockets, it does not account for the above stated happenings.

As far as things based in reality, I'm not touching that. If you could define reality, I mean really define it (not just some dictionary entry) you'd be a very popular person with philosophers worldwide.

And from now on, I beleive I'll follow Leslie Keans' example by saying I don't know what it was, what it was doing, or where it came from. All I know is some very credible men with nothing to gain had an anomalous event happen to them that has no easy explanation when all of the facts about the incident are taken into account.

ET's, time travelers, extra-dimensional beings, Black Psi-Ops by the CIA, wizards, mutant frogs......who knows what the real explanation is?

From now on, I think I'll leave the postulations to others, and just state the facts as they are known. ALL the facts.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Lol! Gee whiz Angel. Ok. There is nothing wrong with putting forth rational, logical explanations for seemingly anomalous events. Occam's razor has it's place.
But don't you think such explanations should include all available data?
The lighthouse just doesn't work for almost all of these series of events.
Even taking into account meteors and Russian rockets, it does not account for the above stated happenings.

As far as things based in reality, I'm not touching that. If you could define reality, I mean really define it (not just some dictionary entry) you'd be a very popular person with philosophers worldwide.

And from now on, I beleive I'll follow Leslie Keans' example by saying I don't know what it was, what it was doing, or where it came from. All I know is some very credible men with nothing to gain had an anomalous event happen to them that has no easy explanation when all of the facts about the incident are taken into account.

ET's, time travelers, extra-dimensional beings, Black Psi-Ops by the CIA, wizards, mutant frogs......who knows what the real explanation is?

From now on, I think I'll leave the postulations to others, and just state the facts as they are known. ALL the facts.

Well, I don't think I've heard any of them even attempt to deal with the object breaking into 5 white ones and then all of those flying away separately. That detail always gets conveniently forgotten.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Lol! Gee whiz Angel. Ok. There is nothing wrong with putting forth rational, logical explanations for seemingly anomalous events. Occam's razor has it's place.
But don't you think such explanations should include all available data?
The lighthouse just doesn't work for almost all of these series of events.
Even taking into account meteors and Russian rockets, it does not account for the above stated happenings.

As far as things based in reality, I'm not touching that. If you could define reality, I mean really define it (not just some dictionary entry) you'd be a very popular person with philosophers worldwide.

And from now on, I beleive I'll follow Leslie Keans' example by saying I don't know what it was, what it was doing, or where it came from. All I know is some very credible men with nothing to gain had an anomalous event happen to them that has no easy explanation when all of the facts about the incident are taken into account.

ET's, time travelers, extra-dimensional beings, Black Psi-Ops by the CIA, wizards, mutant frogs......who knows what the real explanation is?

From now on, I think I'll leave the postulations to others, and just state the facts as they are known. ALL the facts.

That's a really good philosophy I should perhaps follow. A lot of things about this case bother me, and as I have said, there are so many variables at play that no one will ever have the full story. All we have is speculation and eye witness accounts that seem to be problematic (at least to some of us).

Reality:
It is hard to define reality since we can't kid ourselves into thinking that we know everything there is to know - even the most die-hard of all skeptics accepts that. I think of reality as what we currently know to be true, and it isn't a static thing - it changes all the time. Reality 600 years ago was that the world was flat. The current reality is that is obviously isn't. But what if we discover that the world is actually part of a computer simulation? That would become our new reality. Some of the stuff you mention is not part of our currently understood reality, so it falls out of my parameters for explanations to this case and others like it. Once those things become part of our known reality, I will gladly consider them. For now I can't, that's just the way I'm wired. I won't hold it against you if you don't agree, as long as you respect my way of thinking and disagree with me in a civil way, which you have done.

Thanks

 

[Ron Collins]

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.

Slight variations don't bother me as much as many people completely agreeing. Perception being a personal thing and all. Now I have not read all the accounts in detail. I probably need to do this before taking a defensive position on that front.

But, I do tend to give more credence to military personal with an MOS that requires good observation skills. MaGaha is the first guy I heard publicly say things like 'pilots and police officers are no better judge of aerial phenomenon than anyone else'. I sent an email to him asking him to point me to the study he referenced to make this determination. I got crickets as a response. So I sent a followup detailing the Air Force Security Forces 13 week base training program and talked about followup courses both at the base and unit level that focused on observational training. Again, I got crickets.

Pilots get training and practice in identifying things in the air. I am a pilot. I am keenly aware of things in the air and can come very close to identifying most airplanes with little trouble. It doesn't matter if i am on the ground or in the air. Most pilots are able to do the same.

After all, ATC(Air Traffic Control) often will alert you to a specific aircraft type to look out for. For instance, they will tell you that Diamond Katana is crossing your heading at 200ft above your altitude at 2 miles and ask if you have a visual on that aircraft. This sort of thing happens nearly every flight over even a moderately populated area. In the above example, I know to look for a slow moving aircraft as they are essentially flying lawnmowers as opposed to a Citation jet for instance. ATC combined with CAS(collision avoidance systems) and good piloting skills like depth scanning help to train pilots to notice objects scooting around in airspace. I fail to see how Bob the plumber can compare with either of these.

Sorry for the rant, I just got on a roll.

 

[exo_doc]

Well, I don't think I've heard any of them even attempt to deal with the object breaking into 5 white ones and then all of those flying away separately. That detail always gets conveniently forgotten.

You know, that's the strangest event that happened then. That really pegs my weird shit-o-meter. One light becoming five, then flying away in seperate directions. Mind boggling.

Weren't there photographs taken also? And they were turned over to the higher ups and never seen again? I guess that can't be considered evidence because the photos are not around for analysis.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Slight variations don't bother me as much as many people completely agreeing. Perception being a personal thing and all. Now I have not read all the accounts in detail. I probably need to do this before taking a defensive position on that front.

But, I do tend to give more credence to military personal with an MOS that requires good observation skills. MaGaha is the first guy I heard publicly say things like 'pilots and police officers are no better judge of aerial phenomenon than anyone else'. I sent an email to him asking him to point me to the study he referenced to make this determination. I got crickets as a response. So I sent a followup detailing the Air Force Security Forces 13 week base training program and talked about followup courses both at the base and unit level that focused on observational training. Again, I got crickets.

Pilots get training and practice in identifying things in the air. I am a pilot. I am keenly aware of things in the air and can come very close to identifying most airplanes with little trouble. It doesn't matter if i am on the ground or in the air. Most pilots are able to do the same.

After all, ATC(Air Traffic Control) often will alert you to a specific aircraft type to look out for. For instance, they will tell you that Diamond Katana is crossing your heading at 200ft above your altitude at 2 miles and ask if you have a visual on that aircraft. This sort of thing happens nearly every flight over even a moderately populated area. In the above example, I know to look for a slow moving aircraft as they are essentially flying lawnmowers as opposed to a Citation jet for instance. ATC combined with CAS(collision avoidance systems) and good piloting skills like depth scanning help to train pilots to notice objects scooting around in airspace. I fail to see how Bob the plumber can compare with either of these.

Sorry for the rant, I just got on a roll.

Really Ron? That's you ranting?

You bring up some fantastic points for everyone to think about. I have not seen any study that shows if a pilot (or other trained individual) is better as observing his or her surroundings. I do know that we're all susceptible to the same memory problems, but that isn't necessarily the same thing. It really would be interesting to know. If I have a chance today, I'll look to see if I can find anything in the online journals I have access to at work.

 

[exo_doc]

That's a really good philosophy I should perhaps follow. A lot of things about this case bother me, and as I have said, there are so many variables at play that no one will ever have the full story. All we have is speculation and eye witness accounts that seem to be problematic (at least to some of us).

Reality:
It is hard to define reality since we can't kid ourselves into thinking that we know everything there is to know - even the most die-hard of all skeptics accepts that. I think of reality as what we currently know to be true, and it isn't a static thing - it changes all the time. Reality 600 years ago was that the world was flat. The current reality is that is obviously isn't. But what if we discover that the world is actually part of a computer simulation? That would become our new reality. Some of the stuff you mention is not part of our currently understood reality, so it falls out of my parameters for explanations to this case and others like it. Once those things become part of our known reality, I will gladly consider them. For now I can't, that's just the way I'm wired. I won't hold it against you if you don't agree, as long as you respect my way of thinking and disagree with me in a civil way, which you have done.

Thanks

Computer simulation. Yeah, the whole Matrix analogy really bothers me sometimes, especially after some bourbon. I can't think about it too much without getting wigged out.

Earlier you said "we are just left with total speculation". That's true. But that doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Even if they don't make sense I think analysis and discussion are still needed. And opinion diversity is the only way to go.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Computer simulation. Yeah, the whole Matrix analogy really bothers me sometimes, especially after some bourbon. I can't think about it too much without getting wigged out.

Earlier you said "we are just left with total speculation". That's true. But that doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Even if they don't make sense I think analysis and discussion are still needed. And opinion diversity is the only way to go.

I absolutely agree with you.

 

[Hotkafka]

Despite the light show and peculiar fragmenting of the purported object, another thing that's often sadly overlooked is Penniman's episode with the actual craft. Sure, there's a number of nagging questions about this particular event, however this is an integral part of the narrative that just gets scuttled when the entire event is analyzed by debunkers. I still haven't heard a cogent treatment of this particular component of the story by those offering alternative explanations.

 

[Ron Collins]

Despite the light show and peculiar fragmenting of the purported object, another thing that's often sadly overlooked is Penniman's episode with the actual craft. Sure, there's a number of nagging questions about this particular event, however this is an integral part of the narrative that just gets scuttled when the entire event is analyzed by debunkers. I still haven't heard a cogent treatment of this particular component of the story by those offering alternative explanations.

It is because there is only one alternative, that he is lying. I personally believe that what he says happened did indeed happen. He did everything by the book. He took notes and lead a team back to the same position the next day to collect physical evidence. (by the way, his last name is Penniston) You are right though, people tend to focus on Col. Halt's experience. I believe that is because of the lighthouse explanation is an easy go to. Nobody likes to flat out call a guy like Penniston a liar. McGaha even stopped short of it when King gave him the opportunity, twice I might add, to do so. Instead, and if you can find the video of that someplace it is worth a watch, McGaga move very quickly back to Halt's testimony. He is visually uncomfortable speaking about Penniston's story. He keeps looking down and often bumbles through his position. Then when he start in on Halt he stares right at the camera and his body language completely changes. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but surely that has to say something.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It is because there is only one alternative, that he is lying. I personally believe that what he says happened did indeed happen. He did everything by the book. He took notes and lead a team back to the same position the next day to collect physical evidence. (by the way, his last name is Penniston) You are right though, people tend to focus on Col. Halt's experience. I believe that is because of the lighthouse explanation is an easy go to. Nobody likes to flat out call a guy like Penniston a liar. McGaha even stopped short of it when King gave him the opportunity, twice I might add, to do so. Instead, and if you can find the video of that someplace it is worth a watch, McGaga move very quickly back to Halt's testimony. He is visually uncomfortable speaking about Penniston's story. He keeps looking down and often bumbles through his position. Then when he start in on Halt he stares right at the camera and his body language completely changes. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but surely that has to say something.

I really didn't like the way McGaha acted in that interview - he's the type of dick Phil Plait is talking about.

 

[Hotkafka]

I guess what unnerves me is the implication that's associated with attending to investigating certain components of an anomalous sequence, while dismissing other important attributes of a reported experience, usually those which involve the communication of a perception. Sure it makes sense to focus on the physical or material evidence in the said phenomenon, for that's the clearest road to accumulate evidence to the contrary of a purported event - however skeptics and debunkers often seem to operate under the imperative that they can pick and choose which sequence of a said phenomenon is worthy to be investigated. For example, in the Rendelsham Forrest case, it's alright to focus on what was reported as being the anomalous lights that were associated with the reported experience, but when it comes to addressing the report of contact with a physical UFO, it's outwardly dismissed. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this seems to be evidence of the much greater pattern of lazy debunking: I.e., "I, as a sane and self-appointed critical thinker, get to pick and choose which component of the reported EXPERIENCE is deemed credible enough to be addressed." Which seems peculiar, after all the case in it's entirety can be boiled down to a 'perception of purported phenomenon.' It seems when you consider this evident underlying bias which grants the skeptic/debunker the latitude to dismiss any report and the associated experiencial evidence of a physical craft, one is underhandedly levying a judgment on the psychological stability of those whom experienced the event. And here's where it gets interesting, skeptics and debunkers don't even care to offer an explanation of the underlying implicit judgment that THEY are making. It's assumed by the reader that's what being said is that the participants of the event are simply lying, or perhaps more popularly, they are under the spell of insanity or some variety thereof, but in no way do they make an effort to address what manner of insanity that is. If you are going to imply, by ignoring the report of physical contact with a purported UFO, that somebody was suffering from a delusion, or perhaps a convenient bought of temporary psychosis, or mass hallucination, well then, have the balls to just go ahead and say it like it is. And then, do the reader a favor by providing a potential diagnosis or psychological interpretation of what transpired with those experiencers involved - i.e. petition the services of a mental health practitioner to support your assertions: I.E., "the report of the Rendelsham Forrest UFO is potentially the result of a Schizophrenic Break."

 

[Lauren Jones]

At some point during the night he was involved, Halt calls off the investigation and everyone returns to the base, but the base was not put on any kind of heightened status. Given the unknown nature of the lights witnessed, not to mention reports of landed craft and beams shining down on sensitive areas, it does seem odd that a base with nuclear weapons would not be on red alert so to speak.

This leads me to question how seriously these events were taken in "real time." If unidentified and still unexplained, it would seem incredibly irresponsible just to pack it up for the night while the phenomenon may have still been present.

What do you think?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

however skeptics and debunkers often seem to operate under the imperative that they can pick and choose which sequence of a said phenomenon is worthy to be investigated.

I find that everyone is guilty of this - both UFO investigators and skeptics alike. UFO often fixate on the anecdotal, such as eye witness testimony in this case, and skeptics fixate on physical things (like the lighthouse) or confabulation of memories. This is one case where we really can't be sure because there seems to have been so much that went on. There's nothing that convinces me it was an extra terrestrial that was the cause, or anything else paranormal, but I've explained that why elsewhere in this thread.

 

[Hotkafka]

[/Quote] There's nothing that convinces me it was an extra terrestrial that was the cause, or anything else paranormal, but I've explained that why elsewhere in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Angelo, you've been beating that drum pretty hard throughout, ...ad infinitum. While I am keen enough to understand where you're coming from - I'm still curious: what would qualify a particular event to be of extraterrestrial origin? ...A landing and a keynote address on the White house lawn? A thought exercise proposed to you: if you believed Penniston's story of touching a craft of unkown origin (I know you're squirming here, just grab tight of your jeans), of what origin would you interpret it to be? Perhaps narrowing it down to one potential origin will overload your circuits: in that case, present your best hypothesis.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angelo, you've been beating that drum pretty hard throughout, ...ad infinitum. While I am keen enough to understand where you're coming from - I'm still curious: what would qualify a particular event to be of extraterrestrial origin? ...A landing and a keynote address on the White house lawn? A thought exercise proposed to you: if you believed Penniston's story of touching a craft of unkown origin (I know you're squirming here, just grab tight of your jeans), of what origin would you interpret it to be? Perhaps narrowing it down to one potential origin will overload your circuits: in that case, present your best hypothesis.

I would say I don't know, because as you said - it was of an unknown craft.
If his report was true, I would hazard a guess that it could have been a crashed satellite of terrestrial origin. My main issue is that before we jump to something that has never been proven to be true, we must explore other avenues. The problem is that when people attempt that, they are called debunkers.

Now, with what I would qualify as an actual extra terrestrial event, I would expect a documented case (several videos, photos, clearly showing the extra-terrestrials) with experts there to make sure it's real - I wouldn't mind having people like Michio Kaku, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, and other people there who have been highly critical of the phenomenon. I mean, if I can't take their word for it (as long as it includes good physical evidence), I won't believe anyone.

 

[exo_doc]

I would say I don't know, because as you said - it was of an unknown craft.
If his report was true, I would hazard a guess that it could have been a crashed satellite of terrestrial origin. My main issue is that before we jump to something that has never been proven to be true, we must explore other avenues. The problem is that when people attempt that, they are called debunkers.

Now, with what I would qualify as an actual extra terrestrial event, I would expect a documented case (several videos, photos, clearly showing the extra-terrestrials) with experts there to make sure it's real - I wouldn't mind having people like Michio Kaku, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, and other people there who have been highly critical of the phenomenon. I mean, if I can't take their word for it (as long as it includes good physical evidence), I won't believe anyone.

Michael Shermer?!? LOL Angel! Mr. Shermer probably doesn't beleive his mother gave birth to him because he doesn't remember seeing it , therefor it didn't happen.

As for a crashed satellite, ...wouldn't it have still been there the following morning when they went back to the scene, took photos and radiation count readings?