Clueless article on "Rendlesham Forest"

[Ron Collins]

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.

That is a good experiment. I also try to keep origin hypothesis separate from the existence of the phenomenon. I would say that if you believe Penniston, and I do, then the most prominent theory of origin is the ETH and that seems to me a very plausible explanation. However, there is no way to be sure. I try to divorce the two concepts mainly because the opposition nearly always focuses on the origin and thus refuse to admit that the phenomenon exists. I think the first step is to prove a phenomenon exists and then tackle origin, propulsion, intent, etc.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

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?

See, with an attitude like that, how can we have a serious conversation? I answered your question as honestly as possible, and you treat it like that.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

That is a good experiment. I also try to keep origin hypothesis separate from the existence of the phenomenon. I would say that if you believe Penniston, and I do, then the most prominent theory of origin is the ETH and that seems to me a very plausible explanation. However, there is no way to be sure. I try to divorce the two concepts mainly because the opposition nearly always focuses on the origin and thus refuse to admit that the phenomenon exists. I think the first step is to prove a phenomenon exists and then tackle origin, propulsion, intent, etc.

That makes a lot of sense Ron, although I can't agree that an explanation involving extra-terrestrials is plausible. There's a chance, yes, but we have no data that shows that this has ever happened before or since. It is a possibility, however slim.

 

[Hotkafka]

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.[/QUOTE]

I can't say I'm all that shocked by your verdict: a satellite. However stating that I assume you must have either missed or completely disregarded my previous post, i.e. the underlying implications of ignoring critical reported evidence, i.e. the fact that the Rendelsham UFO had both a take off and a landing (among other things). So, essentially we have come full circle according to the results of your thought experiment: except in your latest version you have significantly upgraded the trigger mechanism from a lighthouse beacon to a satellite. Conclusion: Penniston suffered a schizophrenic break, or some variety of consciousness distorting illness thereof.

I also find it interesting that in the ultimate scenario you painted for ET validation it includes a gallery of respected "scientists," but no where in this portrait do we find you. That may be something you might want to ponder over.

In any case, I still can appreciate your perspective. And sincere thanks for doing the thought experiment.

 

[exo_doc]

See, with an attitude like that, how can we have a serious conversation? I answered your question as honestly as possible, and you treat it like that.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------



Angel that was just good natured ribbing, don't take it to heart. Now Phil Plait is ok - for a skeptic (JUST KIDDING), no he's alright. And Richard Dawkins, Rebecca Watson, and Isaac Asimov are ok too.
But Shermer, to me in my opinion, he's a pathological skeptic. That is, "There ain't no such things as Ufo's, so any evidence you have is fake- no matter how good it is." Being a good skeptic is at least being able to rationally look at all sides and available evidence. Based on articles I have read by him, and at least two interviews I have seen of him, he abhors and hates even the possibility there may be objects flying around that are inexplicable. It seems to offend him. It drives him to become the thing he hates,...irrational. So forgive me if I can't take the man seriously, he most assuredly wouldn't take me seriously. Richard Wilson, a noted skeptic in his book "Don't Get Fooled Again" states what I'm saying quite nicely:

"......the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position"........

THAT is a literal definition of Michael Shermer.

Any hoo, ...I forgot what my original point was.
Oh yeah. If you'll refer back to the original article this thread was about, notice how the so-called "author" (loosely used) only talks about somebody seeing a light in the sky"--Oh Hey! There's a lighthouse five miles away, well that explains it all!
No mention of three seperate events, the number of people, their qualifications, what they actually reported......no mention of a solid craft that was touched, impressions in the ground, radiation readings, voice tapes taken during one of the events, nothing.
Just lighthouses and apparently mentally retarded military personnel.
THAT was my original point. If someone is going to analyze something, ALL data should be included, .....not just the data that only supports someones pre-conceived explanation.

BTW, I watched that Phil Plait video again, he was really on the spot.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel that was just good natured ribbing, don't take it to heart.

Sorry about that - it just came off sounding mean spirited.

I appreciate what you wrote - and I have to say, I admit that I can't agree with Shermer on everything. Rebecca Watson is pretty great, and her blog is fantastic.

I also find it interesting that in the ultimate scenario you painted for ET validation it includes a gallery of respected "scientists," but no where in this portrait do we find you. That may be something you might want to ponder over.

I didn't include myself because there's no way I would be involved if such a situation arose. However, of course I would like to be included among a group that would see it. I would never want to see it alone though since I would have no way to validate what i saw - being among a group of "experts" would be fantastic.

 

[tyder001]

would never want to see it alone though since I would have no way to validate what i saw - being among a group of "experts" would be fantastic.


Now that is where we differ. I would love to see it alone. I have no need of the validation of "wise men/women" in that situation. Not saying it would be a bad thing to have. But, just me and I could "explore" and look and learn? Great! Then if needed I could call in others. At least now I think I understand a little better where you are coming from. You have a great respect (nothing wrong with that) and need for a pyhsical academic no doubt about it experience. While for some reason I'm one of those folks who respect the academic and the science but have no real need for validation of my core inner beliefes. (good or bad) To be honest (this is where I say I'm a true skeptic.) James Randi and Richard Dawkins and the Right Reverand (sorry he reminds me of one) Schermer can all come out tomorrow and say they have been converted. It still would not convince me. But, if I touched it or felt it then I wouldn't need them or anybody else.

Anyway, as I've said before Angel you are one of the most civil folks on here. So, if I have offended you or if you have thought my comments such as "why are skeptics even here" were aimed at you then I apologise.

I still don't beleive in spacemen though. Although, I will keep watching the skies.

 

[Hotkafka]

I think I agree with tyder's sentiment on this matter - i.e. not needing a so-called expert to validate my experience (however, I'm not silly enough to state that having one handy would be of great benefit).

Angelo, returning to my belief about an unstated bias: What then do you attribute Penniston's characterization of the craft? If it were potentially a satellite, how do you account for the reports of its physical characteristics and capabilities?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

.

Angelo, returning to my belief about an unstated bias: What then do you attribute Penniston's characterization of the craft? If it were potentially a satellite, how do you account for the reports of its physical characteristics and capabilities?

I really wish I could answer that to your satisfaction. The truth is, I don't know - I am throwing out ideas, but really, we can't know for sure if they are right or not. He was there and he has his own ideas of what he thinks he saw.

 

[exo_doc]

Good Grief! Here is an excerpt from Ian Ridpaths Website about this case:

Website: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

**********Although the overall case is complex, the main aspects can be summarized as follows:
1. Security guards saw bright lights apparently descending into Rendlesham Forest around 3 a.m on 1980 December 26. A bright fireball burned up over southern England at the same time.
2. The guards went out into the forest and saw a flashing light between the trees, which they followed until they realized it was coming from a lighthouse (Orford Ness).
3. The following morning, indentations in the ground and marks on the trees were found in a clearing. Local police and a forester identified these as rabbit scrapings and cuts made by foresters.
4. Two nights later the deputy base commander, Lt Col Charles Halt, investigated the area. He took radiation readings, which were background. He also saw a flashing light in the direction of Orford Ness but was unable to identify it.
5. Col Halt reported seeing starlike objects that twinkled and hovered for hours, like stars. The brightest of these, which appeared to send down beams of light, was in the direction of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. **********


UN-stinking-believable. If you read the entire article, with much of the actual data of the event not even mentioned, he concludes a few brain damaged idiot American military guys mistake a meteor, a lighthouse and some rabbit diggings for a grounded, metallic object.

Point 2 is totally wrong! Those guys never said anything about "recognizing it was just the lighthouse".
Point 4 is just bullshit! Those radiation readings were 7 (that's SEVEN) times higher at the impressions than anywhere else nearby.
Point 5...Oh yeah, I've seen Sirius shoot a beam of light onto the ground plenty of times. What CRAP!

NO mention of a solid metallic warm to the touch object.
NO mention of a light rising into the air and splitting into five lights that flew off into different directions.


Here's another excerpt:
***********Some weeks later [in 1983 November] I returned to Rendlesham Forest in search of answers. The landing marks had long since been destroyed when the trees were felled, but I now knew an eyewitness who had seen them: Vince Thurkettle. He recalled for me his disappointment with what he saw.


The three depressions were irregular in shape and did not even form a symmetrical triangle. He recognized them as rabbit diggings, several months old and covered with a layer of fallen pine needles. They lay in an area surrounded by 75ft-tall pine trees planted 10ft to 15ft apart – scarcely the place to land a 20ft-wide spacecraft. [note: this is one of the various estimates of size that have been made. Witness Jim Penniston says the object was “the size of a tank” although Halt’s memo described it as 2–3 metres across]. *********

Ridpath really is saying Penniston and Halt were either lying or insane, that the impressions weren't, and the radiation count wasn't higher than normal.

How the hell can you argue with someone who changes the story, leaves out relevant information, distorts the rest, and insinuates everyone involved in this was a lying retard?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Hi,

A few points not organized particularly well:

1. This whole idea of a plate blocking the light from the lighthouse is a total red herring. Light is still clearly seen from the lighthouse. This is well documented. The way proponents of the case keep bringing this up reminds me of arguments with 9/11 truthers, who also repeat the same false information over and over. Ridpath also reports his experience of going to the site at night and how the light did seem to move--this is especially likely due to position of the light and the way it falls into the tree line--which makes the "motion" more irregular and mysterious.

2. The fact that an extremely bright fireball (meteor) almost as bright as the full moon was seen over the same area at the exactly the same time may be inconvenient but it does have the extra added problem of being true. Ignoring this occurrence shows something other that an unbiased search for the truth.

3. The radiation is another red herring. The counter used was not suitable for low level radiation and was designed to measure real radiation in spills, etc. not background radiation. The National Radiological Protection Board report confirmed this.

4. The landing site is a rather sad and desperate thing, isn't it. The local police thought that the depressions were rabbit holes. Check out Ridpath's site for photos of other rabbit holes that look EXACTLY the same as the supposed saucer ones. Even Halt sounds sorely disappointed when he sees the "site".

5. The fact that the stories of the witnesses get better over time, as notebooks, etc, surface is not a good sign. For instance Penniston's initial report mentioned nothing about going up to the object and touching it. Acceptance of these after-the-fact improvements is something I see all the time in UFO "research". As a quick example, I am reminded of how Walter Haut, the man who delivered the Roswell Press release, had a story that just got bigger and bigger. By the time of his death he was claiming he had seen the alien bodies, too. If he had lived a bit longer he might have even ridden in a saucer himself.

In the end what are skeptics really saying about the story? It's not a simple matter. These things are often examined as though they occur in a laboratory setting. In reality, a confusing nighttime walk through the woods is not an ideal place to make accurate observations. It's a great place to jump to the wrong conclusions about stuff you see. I have certainly experienced this myself and I would guess other folks have, too.

That events conspired here to create some false impressions and anxiety is a much more likely scenario than the one proposed by proponents it seems to me.

Lance

Good summary Lance, and you said all that without sounding like a jerk .

The stuff that really really bothers me about this case is the reports that the story changed over time, and it seemingly has. That really hurts the credibility of it.

 

[exo_doc]

I have no idea where you are getting your information from Lance. Could you please provide a source for the radiation count? This is the first I have heard of the flawed rad testing.

As far as the growing of the story, between the hand written accounts and the official deatails that were filed, other than the fact they didn't mention in the official file that the object was touched, I do not see any growth. And most security men are taught to carry a notebook for taking notes. So what if he didn't share it for a while, or the other guy didn't remember it. I think that actually adds credence since they don't agree on everything.

And those plaster casts of the impressions do not look like rabbit holes to me (I refer to earlier posts with the photos).
And Ridpath was there weeks afterward, after the trees had been cut down, he says so in his article. How in the world can you get even a moderately accurate assessment of the site after it's been trampled and probably rained on?

Your treatment of these guys really irritates me, like they are all bald faced liars or complete idiots, but as an Army veteran I'm very biased where the guys in uniform are concerned, so I'll keep my mouth shut because I can't be impartial.

I still stand with everything I said in post # 117.

 

[tyder001]

I don't know and I have to admit being a little bored with the u.f.o. subject lately. But, Lance I've gotta ask again and I honestly mean no offense (this time.) Don't you ever get bored just hanging aound a forum yelling NO,no,no,no,no,no about a subject (any subject pertaining to the paranormal really) that you neither believe in nor have the mindset to ever consider? I like sports and I go on different football and baseball boards and discuss it. I like books and rock and roll and blonde haired women. So, I love to discuss em. I even like the paranormal and I even "beleive" there is a spiritual nature to mankind. But, if I hated or thought any of those things were totally bogus then I wouldn't waste my time. Anyway, do what ya want to do. I'm sure you will .

 

[Paul Kimball]

I don't know and I have to admit being a little bored with the u.f.o. subject lately. But, Lance I've gotta ask again and I honestly mean no offense (this time.) Don't you ever get bored just hanging aound a forum yelling NO,no,no,no,no,no about a subject (any subject pertaining to the paranormal really) that you neither believe in nor have the mindset to ever consider? I like sports and I go on different football and baseball boards and discuss it. I like books and rock and roll and blonde haired women. So, I love to discuss em. I even like the paranormal and I even "beleive" there is a spiritual nature to mankind. But, if I hated or thought any of those things were totally bogus then I wouldn't waste my time. Anyway, do what ya want to do. I'm sure you will .

A couple of things.

First, I have chastised Lance for the same thing, but to be fair, he has admitted the RB47 case is genuinely interesting, and he is making an effort to resolve the Kelly Johnson case - both of which are considered two of the best by UFO researchers. What more can one ask for? I have a feeling that it the ETH could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Lance would have no problem admitting that it was so proven - just as I'm sure Phil Klass wouldn't have had any problem.

Second, the Rendlesham case is an absolute mess. Lance is quite right that the radiation readings have been overblown, as have the "landing marks". I think the lighthouse is a non-starter as an explanation, or even part of an explanation (Halt et al were not drunk, and they certainly weren't idiots), but I also see other possible explanations that don't involve the lighthouse, but also don't involve aliens from Zeta Reticuli.

Paul

 

[tyder001]

Well, Paul I do understand but I don't beleive in aliens either. But, Lance is a born again skeptic and those kind don't change. I could be wrong and it's not fair (apologies in advance to Lance) to judge folks ya haven't met before. But as for the Klass quote?

just as I'm sure Phil Klass wouldn't have had any problem.


ROFLMAO! With all due respect.

 

[exo_doc]

I still don't think I trust Ridpath, pardon me if I do my own research into the whole rad thing.
And yes, I trust the clear photo of the plaster cast over the grainy black and white mildly out of focus photo of the holes......... Odd that you should choose the worst quality of the two.
And yes, the whole Rendalesham event has become a mess.

I'm still taking the middle road. I don't know what they saw, I don't know what happened other than what they said and the evidence they can provide,.....but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and not pass judgement on thier sanity or state of mind.

As for what it was? ET, Black project, ghosts, goblins , fairies....who the hell knows? I know weird things are going on up there, but where they come from or what they are doing I'm leaving alone and just trying to concentrate on finding concrete evidence that intelligently controlled machines, from who knows where, are real.
THEN I might try to conjecture their purpose and origins.

And I have never said they were ET's. There is absolutely no evidence at all that they are extraterrestrial aliens,.....BUT, it is a possibility along with interdimensional travelers, time travelers, secret government vehicles, etc, etc, etc....a never ending list.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I have no idea where you are getting your information from Lance. Could you please provide a source for the radiation count? This is the first I have heard of the flawed rad testing.

As far as the growing of the story, between the hand written accounts and the official deatails that were filed, other than the fact they didn't mention in the official file that the object was touched, I do not see any growth. And most security men are taught to carry a notebook for taking notes. So what if he didn't share it for a while, or the other guy didn't remember it. I think that actually adds credence since they don't agree on everything.

And those plaster casts of the impressions do not look like rabbit holes to me (I refer to earlier posts with the photos).
And Ridpath was there weeks afterward, after the trees had been cut down, he says so in his article. How in the world can you get even a moderately accurate assessment of the site after it's been trampled and probably rained on?

Your treatment of these guys really irritates me, like they are all bald faced liars or complete idiots, but as an Army veteran I'm very biased where the guys in uniform are concerned, so I'll keep my mouth shut because I can't be impartial.

I still stand with everything I said in post # 117.

The fact that he touched an object is often touted as one of the best pieces of evidence to support that nothing "normal" happened that night - we can't just gloss over the fact that he added that later.

Also, I really don't see how their stories not matching and information being brought up later adds credence to the case.

We really need to be careful with stuff like that because it makes or breaks the whole thing.

 

[Hotkafka]

The more I look into this case and the more clammer it elicits on the forum, the more I just want to chuck the issue into the slush pile. Lance brings up some very good points, and to be honest, the radiation and landing compressions seems the least impressive sequence of data to focus on -despite the fact that it surely gets the hackles raised in both camps being "physical evidence." What's of primary concern to me is the underlying statement that is being levied against the experiencers of this event by the skeptics. Pick your poison: lighthouse beacon, meteor, satellite, a battered 1979 Plymouth Volare, - you just can't escape the fact that what's being said is these men, trained military personnel, are either lying, hallucinating, conning or prone to grossly exaggerating extraordinarily feeble natural phenomenon. That just doesn't hit the mark for me. Yes, humans, all humans are capable of stunning stupidity and misinterpretation, but factor in the rigors of military training, and the redundancy of the multiple personnel that were there to reduce the ever present danger of your standard variety bed shitting, and well, I think you can make a very good guess that something other than what has been offered as an alternative explanation happened that night. I don't know how many of you on the forum received military training in the past, but I am here to attest to the zeal in which the armed forces designs its training programs to avoid exactly what these soldiers are being accused of: gross incompetence at every level and in spades. Such performances are not received well, to say the least, in such programs. Very creative varieties of torture and misery await those non-performers, and serial non-performers, well they're recycled for dog food. So... Just you're standard variety human shit show? -Not an impossible scenario, but highly, highly unlikely.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

...but I also see other possible explanations that don't involve the lighthouse, but also don't involve aliens from Zeta Reticuli.

What explanations are they?

 

[Ron Collins]

The more I look into this case and the more clammer it elicits on the forum, the more I just want to chuck the issue into the slush pile. Lance brings up some very good points, and to be honest, the radiation and landing compressions seems the least impressive sequence of data to focus on -despite the fact that it surely gets the hackles raised in both camps being "physical evidence." What's of primary concern to me is the underlying statement that is being levied against the experiencers of this event by the skeptics. Pick your poison: lighthouse beacon, meteor, satellite, a battered 1979 Plymouth Volare, - you just can't escape the fact that what's being said is these men, trained military personnel, are either lying, hallucinating, conning or prone to grossly exaggerating extraordinarily feeble natural phenomenon. That just doesn't hit the mark for me. Yes, humans, all humans are capable of stunning stupidity and misinterpretation, but factor in the rigors of military training, and the redundancy of the multiple personnel that were there to reduce the ever present danger of your standard variety bed shitting, and well, I think you can make a very good guess that something other than what has been offered as an alternative explanation happened that night. I don't know how many of you on the forum received military training in the past, but I am here to attest to the zeal in which the armed forces designs its training programs to avoid exactly what these soldiers are being accused of: gross incompetence at every level and in spades. Such performances are not received well, to say the least, in such programs. Very creative varieties of torture and misery await those non-performers, and serial non-performers, well they're recycled for dog food. So... Just you're standard variety human shit show? -Not an impossible scenario, but highly, highly unlikely.

Absolutely. I think what we have to remember is that these men were trained security forces. This is not a night watchman with a flashlight and a strong desire to hole up in a guard shack. They are soldiers who have had vigorous and intense training drilled into them through repetition and positive assessments. A military job can be lost for crappy performance. Essentially it is a results/performance driven environment.

Halt was a deputy base commander and held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel at the time. To suggest that a career officer with serious command chops would be not only be duped by a lighthouse and a big meteor but then decided to write a report about it and submit that report to higher authorities is rather ridiculous. He knew he that the people that reported these things were not exactly celebrated in the halls of the Pentagon. Yet he felt it was significant enough to risk some measure of his credibility. As I have said before, all the alternative theories presented differ in the reported events with regards to proximity. Halt was not viewing the object through the trees only. He had a clear and unobstructed view while in a clearing at the edge of the farmers field. Everything reported, by trained observers mind you, was that of something more local in proximity.

Personally, I don't buy the "they were confused" argument. It's the same thing Lance and Angel say about ET's. While possible it is extraordinarily improbable that they were confused by a lighthouse and meteor. You might as well call them liars. Which, again, is possible but in my mind extraordinarily improbable.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Personally, I don't buy the "they were confused" argument. It's the same thing Lance and Angel say about ET's. While possible it is extraordinarily improbable that they were confused by a lighthouse and meteor. You might as well call them liars. Which, again, is possible but in my mind extraordinarily improbable.

This is why we probably will never know exactly what happened - I think everyone here can agree on that.