Larry Warren on DMR-Dec. 15th

[Constance]

In case this hasn't been posted yet:

UFOS - A SMOKING GUN AT LAST?
Primary tabs


By Nick Pope - 1 month 3 weeks ago

In last’s month’s column I revealed that although the June 2013 release of MoD UFO files was supposedly the end of a five-year programme to declassify and release the entire archive, an additional 18 UFO files have now been located and will be made public in 2015. A UK national daily newspaper, the Daily Star, broke this story in September, but the full story can now be told for the first time. It links the release of these files to the highly-classified intelligence study on UFOs, codenamed Project Condign, and also links it to the Rendlesham Forest incident.

The story began with the release of Project Condign’s final report, back in May 2006. Bear in mind that unlike the various MJ-12 documents, the provenance of this report isn’t disputed – you can even read it on the UK government’s website. The original document was classified Secret UK Eyes Only and one intriguing passage read as follows:

“The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods.”

UAP is an abbreviation for Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, a term that some of us at the MoD preferred over UFO, but irrespective of the terminology, it was surprising that the media and the UFO community failed to pick up on this bombshell. One person to whom this part of the document was of great interest was John Burroughs. He and his colleague Jim Penniston were the two United States Air Force witnesses who got closest to the unidentified craft that landed in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980.

Burroughs and Penniston have both had health issues which they attribute to their experience, and had been seeking access to their military medical records so they could obtain the best possible diagnosis and treatment. As revealed in a previous column, it transpired that these documents were held in a little-known classified records section of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pat Frascogna, a crusading attorney who has done extensive pro-bono work on John and Jim’s behalf, submitted numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to try to move things forward. The responses were unhelpful to say the least. The CIA would neither confirm nor deny that they had any relevant records, while the State Department suggested that Frascogna contact the Air Force! Despite these responses, with a possible federal lawsuit on the horizon, the explosive quotation from Project Condign looks as if it might be the ‘smoking gun’ needed to blow things wide open.

Understandably, John Burroughs wanted to know more. After all, an assessment in a highly-classified intelligence study doesn’t just come from out of the blue. It’s based on analysis of data. So Burroughs started to make FOIA requests not, as Pat Frascogna had done, to US government agencies, but to the UK’s Ministry of Defence. He challenged the decisions that led to the blacking out of parts of Project Condign’s final report, where some information is still being withheld under FOIA exemptions that cover areas such as defence, national security and intelligence. Burroughs also went after some of the supporting documentation that he suspected was out there. Where were the databases, the working papers, the background briefs, the records of meetings, the rough drafts and the handwritten notes that are as much a part of the story as the final report?

Some of the material that Burroughs has requested is unlikely ever to be made public, as it’s probably still classified and/or sensitive. More fundamentally, while Project Condign was commissioned by the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff, it was actually undertaken by a defence contractor. This was a deliberate tactic which had the twin advantages of taking the study largely outside the scope of both Parliamentary oversight and of the FOIA. So while documents relating to the commissioning of the study (including some that I wrote!) have been released, that’s because they’re MoD documents. And while a redacted copy of the final report has been released too, that’s because the MoD became the “information owner”. But all the ‘stuff in the middle’, that might show how the conclusions in the final report were arrived at, is information that belongs to the defence contractor, and is not covered by the FOIA. The public can’t be certain what this FOIA-exempt material says, but a careful read of the final report reveals that a key recommendation relates to the “various novel military applications” (particularly the development of a directed-energy weapon) that might result from a better understanding of the UFO phenomenon. Technology-acquisition is almost certainly the reason for the secrecy here. There was – and likely still is – a race going on to weaponize this technology, and Project Condign’s final report puts it almost exactly in those words. Again, the media and the UFO community failed to see what was hidden in plain sight.

Notwithstanding the above, the persistence of John Burroughs has forced the MoD to admit that the June 2013 file release was not, as they had claimed at the time, the last of the UFO files. A further 18 were located, including Defence Intelligence Staff policy files, and files from the Directorate of Air Defence – a headquarters policy division staffed by radar experts. So when, sometime around September 2015, these additional 18 UFO files are released, it would be as well to remember why they were made public. It wasn’t due to the media, or the UFO community, but was thanks to a tenacious retired military cop who got caught up in the most significant UFO event since Roswell, and simply wanted some answers.

Finally, while the UFO community may not yet have a ‘spaceship in a hangar’ smoking gun, let’s take a last look at that bombshell quote from Project Condign’s final report: “Several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation” – remember that this is a quote from a Secret UK Eyes Only intelligence study on a phenomenon that the MoD told the UK Parliament, the media and the public was of “no defence significance”. Ironically, the release of Project Condign’s final report, in and of itself, nails the lie that UFOs are of “no defence significance”. Why? Because at the time the document was written, “Secret” was defined as information the compromise of which would, for example, “raise international tension”, “damage seriously relations with friendly governments”, “threaten life directly”, or “cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations”. Self-evidently it’s nonsense to suggest that these sorts of definitions could ever apply to a topic of “no defence significance”. If UFOs were genuinely of “no defence significance”, the MoD wouldn’t have spent over 50 years researching and investigating the phenomenon, wouldn’t have commissioned a highly-classified intelligence study on the subject, and wouldn’t have stamped the study’s final report “Secret UK Eyes Only”.

Nick Pope is a former employee of the UK Ministry of Defence. From 1991 to 1994 he ran the British Government's UFO project and has recently been the public face of the ongoing initiative to declassify and release the entire archive of these UFO files. Nick Pope held a number of other fascinating posts in the course of his 21-year government career, which culminated in his serving as an acting Deputy Director in the Directorate of Defence Security. He now works as a broadcaster and journalist, covering subjects including space, fringe science, defence and intelligence. Nick Pope’s latest book, Encounter in Rendlesham Forest, co-written with John Burroughs and Jim Penniston, was published by Thomas Dunne Books on 15th April and is available via Amazon and all good bookstores.

Latest UFO News | UFO News Today | Recent UFO News | UFOs

 

[Constance]

I've asked John Burroughs for permission to post his own lengthy facebook commentary concerning this section of Condign and he's said fine, so here it is:

John F Burroughs shared his note.
December 27 at 6:24pm
Buried down on Page F4 of Volume Two in a section about the 'potential mental effects on humans' is this passage:
The linking of brain activity to UAP events, where the witness is presumably within near field influences, is currently only partially understood, since assumptions must be made as to the type of fields being encountered. Within the UKADR these close encounters occur only a very few times each year. The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases that remain unreported.

John F Burroughs
Considerations, Note 11: Hidden in Plain Sight.
June 9, 2014 at 4:03pm
"What you see depends on what you thought before you looked."-- Eugene Taurman
“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.”― Wayne W. Dyer

"In December 2000, the MOD distributed internally a Top Secret analysis of the UFO/UAP Phenomenon in the United Kingdom Air Defence Region, which came to be known as Technical Memorandum 55/2/00. The report was issued to a very select list (which remains secret, along with the identity of the author) of somewhere between 7 and 11 recipients.

According to a Guide to the Highlights of the UFO files compiled and released by Dr. David Clarke in 2013:
"The UFO policy file DEFE 24/2458/1 (p 19-25) contains a briefing dated 11 November 2009 for Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth prepared by Carl Mantell of the RAF's Air Command. This recommends that MoD "should seek to reduce very significantly the UFO task which is consuming increasing resource, but produces no valuable defence output." Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" and "there is no defence benefit in [MoD] recording, collating, analysing or investigating UFO sightings." MoD had decided that "investigations into UFO sightings, even from more reliable sources, serve no useful purpose and merely divert air defence specialists from their primary tasks. Accordingly, no further investigations should be carried out into UFO reports received from any source. "

The wording of the recommendation mirrors that of the Key Recommendation of Tech Memo 55/2/00, included Chapter 5 of Volume One [Summary of Study Findings] among a set of recommendations. The Key Recommendation read:

"It should no longer be a requirement for DI55 to monitor UAP reports as they do not demonstrably provide information useful to Defence Intelligence".

According to Clarke, the admission by a US Astronaut [Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 LEM pilot] on a British radio program that his belief was that "the Roswell crash was real and a number of contacts have been real and on-going [but] it's all been covered up by all of our governments for the last 60 years" ignited considerable public interest in MOD transparency. This flurry of inquiries, in part, apparently convinced the MOD to get out of the business of taking UFO reports.

In December of 2009, again according to Clarke, the MOD did just that, shutting down the MOD UFO report desk the duties of which he says "mainly processing paperwork: replying to letters received from the public, press and occasionally members of parliament and responding to FOI requests. ‘Investigations’ were limited to asking experts in fields such as radar and air defence for an opinion before a report was filed." He goes on to quote Paul Webb, who was the last desk officer charged with UFO report response and filing that the idea that the MOD was actively investigating reports was "misleading".

In May 2006, the Tech Memo 55/2/00 was released at the Ministry of Defence website.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/PublicationScheme/SearchPublicatiocheme/UnidentifiedAerialPhenomenauapInTheUkAirDefenceRegion.htm

Dr. Clarke, whose FOIA requests had unearthed the 55/2/00 in the first place and who subsequently took what he claims is an unpaid position with the National Archives, reviewed the 'final' batch of UFO files transferred to the National Archives in a June 25, 2013 video published by the National Archives.
Clarke wrote extensively on the files and his position seems to be that there is nothing there of interest, UFO-wise — after all that work.

There is the story as it appears on the surface.

If you don't believe, are not willing to imagine, don't want to be bothered by other possibilities or otherwise give full consideration, that settles it. The MOD once thought the subject was Top Secret, but it's really nothing and they don't want to get any more information from the public on the matter.
Some people accept that view. Those that do tend to deride anyone who doesn't as addle-brained and prone to conspiracy theory.

But consider this: When has a Top Secret security apparatus NOT wanted to get more information on a subject of interest? In the wake of the Snowden-NSA revelations are a host of stories about the NSA wanting to monitor and evaluate EVERYTHING they can run through their digital filter to allow them to do whatever it is that they are intent upon doing.

And what do we make of the claim that there is 'no useful information' in the stream of public reports? That sounds like it is pointless, in the MOD's opinion, to have a guy sit at a desk and do paperwork in response to inquiry from the public. Which is all the MOD desk's responsibility actually was.

It's plausible that the MOD have access to information streams that the public does not. Therefore, it may be, in fact, true for them to say there is 'no useful information' in the data stream coming from the public to their press-release UFO desk.

But the imperative behind the report, according to Clarke, is that they needed the pretext to shut the operation down. So they got someone to write a report with that conclusion, stuff it with graphs and vague terminology like 'buoyant charged bodies', issue it, then respond to it.

So much for the official world view, the depth of vision by the MOD as far as it wants the public to see it.

However I'd have to say there is something of considerable interest to me in the report and I have to consider why a journalist with such keen interest in MOD UFO reports failed to notice it.

Buried down on Page F4 of Volume Two in a section about the 'potential mental effects on humans' is this passage:

"The linking of brain activity to UAP events, where the witness is presumably within near field influences, is currently only partially understood, since assumptions must be made as to the type of fields being encountered. Within the UKADR these close encounters occur only a very few times each year. The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases that remain unreported."

A lot of folks, including those deeply interested in the UFO issue, looked at the docs over the years and nobody paid any attention to that specific passage.

In particular, Dr. Clarke, in his guidelines to reading the MOD documents, which makes much of the chinese lantern craze causing false positive UFO reports, includes this passage on Rendlesham Forest:

Rendlesham Forest A FOI request in 2008 revealed that documents on the 1980 sightings by military personnel at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, were held on 109 separate files (DEFE 24/2450/1, p. 79) and MoD had received numerous requests for information on the incident that had become known as "Britain's Roswell.‟ But, responding to an inquiry from the USA in 2008 MoD said: "The incident was over a quarter of a century ago and despite the assertions of many people who chose to believe in the existence of UFOs or extra terrestrials, the MoD had little interest in the matter at the time and even less interest now. Put simply, we consider the incident closed" (DEFE 24/2628/1, p144).

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ufo-highlights-guide-2013.pdf

So Clarke was able to pick out information on key cases such as Rendlesham, offering for public understanding that the MOD thought the issue was settled, but did not include the part where they said observers experienced radiation and other side effects at Rendlesham.

The passage in Volume 2 of Tech/Memo 55/2/00 caught my eye because I was out there that night.
And I have specific medical symptoms that are considered by some very knowledgable people to be a fingerprint of a specific kind of radiation.

To get why that is important, consider this:

There are two possible propulsion systems which can account for the kinds of performance observed by the UAP and which could generate radiation. Both need a lot of power, requiring the mastery of solid-state ZPE energy production, that would account for the performance described in the MOD papers.

One of them is electro-gravitic in nature. The other is the Alcubierre field effect.

Think of the first one as impulse power. Good for floating around the sky in impossible fashion.
Think of the second as warp drive. Good for interstellar travel.

And now consider this:

They emit different types and spectra of radiation. The MOD papers spend a lot of time talking about EM radiation at frequencies down at the level of brainwaves, 1-12 Htz. Neither of which is exactly relevant to propulsion and control.

My medical symptoms are known to come from a frequency range way above that and that range matches the by-product of a theoretical Alcubierre style drive.

http://io9.com/5889628/warp-drives-may-come-with-a-killer-downside

I am not saying I know what the phenomenon was that we encountered.
Only that it was.

I have to consider something that would eventually require me to have open-heart surgery to replace a badly shredded anterior mitral valve to be significant, defence or otherwise.

It does not matter where the hell it came from, whether it's a black budget or another civilization, if the phenomenon leaves that kind of evidence behind it and performs in that manner, it is of considerable defence interest. And if it is indeed the result of a black budget program, then one of the interests would be to conceal that fact. Exactly what the phenomenon was is a discussion for much later consideration.

Finally I have to consider this: maybe Dr. Clarke simply did not see that passage. Or see it as meaningful. Dr. Clarke's obtained his PhD. in Folklore from the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield, in 1999. Perhaps, with extensive training in the field of folklore as a lens for his perception, everything is but an urban myth."

 

[Constance]

As Nick Pope stated in the article I posted above, "while Project Condign was commissioned by the MoD’s Defence Intelligence Staff, it was actually undertaken by a defence contractor. This was a deliberate tactic which had the twin advantages of taking the study largely outside the scope of both Parliamentary oversight and of the FOIA. So while documents relating to the commissioning of the study (including some that I wrote!) have been released, that’s because they’re MoD documents. And while a redacted copy of the final report has been released too, that’s because the MoD became the “information owner”. But all the ‘stuff in the middle’, that might show how the conclusions in the final report were arrived at, is information that belongs to the defence contractor, and is not covered by the FOIA."

I realize that this has long been the PTB's way of doing business to avoid public disclosure concerning ufos and black projects, but it's unacceptable in the situations of Burroughs, Penniston, Warren, and any other servicemen placed in harm's way at Rendelsham. There must be some way to obtain disclosure of the radiation data held by that private contractor that could help these men obtain the medical help they need, and I think it's on those of us who are aware of the situation to do what we can to get that information released at least to attending medical specialists. Maybe one of those petitions to the White House could help to bring pressure toward this end. Perhaps it could be sponsored by the Paracast, discussed on the Paracast radio programs and similar broadcast outlets, spread over the internet by all of us interested in helping, and supplemented with letters to our Congressional representatives. So I'm posting this suggestion in order that it can be discussed here and in the hope that something helpful might come of it.

 

[Decker]

Okay, it seems to be shaping up that the Bentwaters case is another one that refuses to die. I just had the following brought to my attention concerning my show with Larry Warren. For your reading pleasure.

The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility

Decker

 

[Burnt State]

Okay, it seems to be shaping up that the Bentwaters case is another one that refuses to die. I just had the following brought to my attention concerning my show with Larry Warren. For your reading pleasure.

The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility

Decker

Well that's one jaw dropping article, both for the implications in abductee/hypnosis research and for the Rendelsham case itself. There appears to be a very interesting piece of the puzzle attached to the day after Warren's experience that could be the cornerstone of the whole event. Warren, who opened this thread's discussion and a highly contentious witness, is now at the centre of it again with more buried info retrieved via hypnosis. While it may be questionable evidence it certainly is enticing for those who have followed Rendelsham over the years.

But the issue of hypnosis and its relationship to abductee research appears to be as questionable and problematic as ever. At the centre of ufology there has always been a witness, and witnesses have been treated in a lot of different ways over the years. Some are celebrated constructions like Romanek, where the witness is raised up on the stage of public fame even though everyone can see there is a charlatan at the centre of it all. Streiber and Walton are also in that camp of the celebrated witnesses, but most witnesses receive scorn, laughter and derision. Many are treated like dirt, lose their jobs, their families and all the former life they had before they talked what they saw. Dale Spaur's kaleidescopic story comes to mind when you think about how the witness can have their lives entirely rearranged.

Perhaps one of the great weaknesses in ufology research is how witnesses are treated, how much of their story and identity should be released. But without a name and a face, witness testimony doesn't mean a lot. In fact it seems to me that without the witness in the crosshairs we would not have this other sociological feature of ufology, where those who have seen something can create the contactee- cult - guru stage show that ultimately has one of the biggest impacts on ufology's audience. It creates the audience and creates direction for discussion. That individual witness has too often become the primary focus of discussion, their impact and their feelings, as opposed to the actual event itself. Witnesses like Emma Woods, or the other woman with many names at the centre of Budd Hopkins' Brooklyn Bridge oeuvre, demonstrate how the witness can displace the event. This seems to happen the most when hypnosis and alien abduction/contact are at the heart of the story. Draw conclusions there as you will.

So when we talk Rendelsham do we talk about personalities more or about the event more? Certainly there is the need to protect the witness more and to respect the privacy of hypnosis tapes. Should they ever be treated as casual playback in the living rooms of the hypnotist and what kind of real safeguards are in place so that their records don't get turned into product or profit? There has always been an issue regarding protocol, policy and regulation inside the field of ufology. Professionalism is hard to come by I suppose when society rejects and dismisses the legitimacy of the field. In the meantime we can continue to expect turmoil and snake oil in this field.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Okay, it seems to be shaping up that the Bentwaters case is another one that refuses to die. I just had the following brought to my attention concerning my show with Larry Warren. For your reading pleasure.

The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility

Decker

I have an honest question, as a new poster. I posted this link yesterday under a new thread. No one has so far bothered to look at it. YOU post the same thing in this thread, and get a big thoughtful response. So what is the secret? Should I only post items in existing threads, even if what I post has nothing to do with the thread? Is that how it works here? I am just bummed out that I get no responses to any threads that I create. So I guess I will stop making new threads and just piggyback on whatever thread appears to have a lot of traffic. Is that the secret for success here?

 

[Decker]

No idea that this same link was posted elsewhere. I did not see that thread but I had one of the principals on my show where my show and interview was referenced. I can only suggest that you carry on and contribute, oh and lighten up a bit ... no one is ignoring you.

Decker

 

[Burnt State]

I have an honest question, as a new poster. I posted this link yesterday under a new thread. No one has so far bothered to look at it. YOU post the same thing in this thread, and get a big thoughtful response. So what is the secret? Should I only post items in existing threads, even if what I post has nothing to do with the thread? Is that how it works here? I am just bummed out that I get no responses to any threads that I create. So I guess I will stop making new threads and just piggyback on whatever thread appears to have a lot of traffic. Is that the secret for success here?

When I check in to look at threads I rarely have time these days to check out all the new threads and stick to whatever two or three threads I'm actively following. I didn't even see your thread with this link but am actively following this thread as Rendelsham is serious UFO history that has the potential to get some conclusions from given the number of living witnesses. i thought the show with Larry Warren was really strong and saw Don Ecker's post, which got my attention right away. And sure enough that was a great link - if you had posted it here you would have got the same response.

New threads get success based on what's getting presented and there's a lot of chance regarding how threads unfold. Who knew consciousness and the paranormal, or climate change, would get such incredible mileage, but they do. Once a certain mix of committed posters decide at random to follow and develop a topic good things happen. Most threads die on the floor or in the first page. Constance has really helped to develop this thread. It would be great to hear Don Ecker's thoughts on these developments or even on the case itself following the interview. In fact there's a great number of posters who know this case very well and are probably following all these recent developments, and yet few of them are posting at all. i think it's all about who happens to have the time to contribute. Either way, keep posting - it all continues to develop the space and you seem to be both informed and committed.

 

[Vance]

Personalities aside, I give the most credence to Larry and Peter's book Left at East gate. Larry is disarmingly candid in this overly long but superbly documented book.

As Burnt State suggest do not let the side shows distract us from the event.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

This case is better than Roswell as the eyewitness are alive and some of the files on this event have been released thanks to Larry and Peter!! Furthermore, the events and the eyewitness account reminds me of the discussion with a former slave labour engineer who was part of French work force who worked on the V1 and V2 which the NAZIS (paper clip mob ) scientists saw triangle objects flying around the testing sites at dusk. This cause much panic among the slave workers force and saw classic flying disc. He went on talking about number being shot due to falling ill. Was he telling the truth who knows .This Bentwaters case is very important did the Veterans see very advance technology ?

 

[boomerang]

I would just chime in with my view that UFOlogy's obsession with regression hypnosis has done our search for truth far more harm than good. The value of hypnosis has somehow become deeply ingrained in this subject and is widely taken as a mainstay in research. Poppycock ! Perhaps it has drama and sex appeal. But anyone taking the time to explore the history of hypnosis and memory as documented by professionals (one such being Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) should realize that hypnotic techniques are far more effective in warping memories and creating false ones, than in sharpening recollection of events. Perhaps an exception to this might involve memories that are falsely implanted to begin with. A notion that fully places us back in that familiar hall of mirrors.

Of course, broach of privacy issues is another matter. And a sure fire way start another internecine squabble for which UFOlogy is so well known.

Psychological and neurological effects of close encounters seem to be more the rule than the exception. Certain repeatedly reported themes, such as the sensation of being in an utterly soundless vacuum and feeling disconnected from
the passage of time, seem to be among a handful of reliable constants at our disposal.

 

[Vance]

LOL, finally saw Jose Chung From Outer Space. Chris Carter X-files creator caught the essence of the UFO conundrum with that series.

I think humans are capable of creating the Rendlesham event, either way it is a very important story.

 

[not even wrong]

LOL, finally saw Jose Chung From Outer Space. Chris Carter X-files creator caught the essence of the UFO conundrum with that series.

I think humans are capable of creating the Rendlesham event, either way it is a very important story.

I know this article is from 2012, I did a search on here and couldn't find it though. This adds more info to the humans created this incident theory (the source may be dubious but I found it interesting):

Rendelsham Exposed. Government inside job. No UFO time traveling aliens present. - Panama City Paranormal | Examiner.com

Apologies if this has already been posted.

 

[Constance]

I don't think we can draw the conclusions Sasha Cohen has drawn in that article published in the Examiner in 2012, at least not until September of this year, 2015, when, according to Pope, an additional 18 files will be released by the MOD and depending on what those files actually include {and of course depending on whether everything in those files is actually included in what is released}. As I see it, a dedicated and skilled researcher of the calibre of Richard Dolan or Robert Hastings would/will be required to sort out and evaluate the totality of the information that becomes available 8-9 months from now and to present a coherent interpretation of what it signifies concerning the events at Rendelsham-Bentwaters in December of 1980.

Above, in posts 61 and 62 of this thread, I quoted in full statements by Nick Pope and John Burroughs concerning the core of what Sasha Cohen hypothesizes on the basis of ambiguous information in the lengthy document she linked. I read all of it several months ago, seeking out the passages she had marked as confirming her hypothesis. These were few and far between and did not persuade me that she had found adequate confirmation there to support her hypothesis. In the Examiner article, she links additional material including patents. Whether those sources supplement her hypothesis more persuasively I do not know, and I don't have time to pursue that material. Even if I did, I would not be able to critique the total of what she links and later, in September, whatever information becomes available in the 18 additional releases from MOD. What I'm saying is that we don't know enough to conclude that the events at Rendelsham-BW in December 1980 can be accounted for as either ufo-related or the results of terrestrial military-intelligence manipulations. My guess is that it's not an either/or situation, but a case of both/and.


Extracts from sources cited in two of my posts above [posts #161 and 162], the first by Nick Pope, the second from John Burroughs:

Pope: ". . .Notwithstanding the above, the persistence of John Burroughs has forced the MoD to admit that the June 2013 file release was not, as they had claimed at the time, the last of the UFO files. A further 18 were located, including Defence Intelligence Staff policy files, and files from the Directorate of Air Defence – a headquarters policy division staffed by radar experts. So when, sometime around September 2015, these additional 18 UFO files are released, it would be as well to remember why they were made public. It wasn’t due to the media, or the UFO community, but was thanks to a tenacious retired military cop who got caught up in the most significant UFO event since Roswell, and simply wanted some answers. . . .

Finally, while the UFO community may not yet have a ‘spaceship in a hangar’ smoking gun, let’s take a last look at that bombshell quote from Project Condign’s final report: “Several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation” – remember that this is a quote from a Secret UK Eyes Only intelligence study on a phenomenon that the MoD told the UK Parliament, the media and the public was of “no defence significance”. Ironically, the release of Project Condign’s final report, in and of itself, nails the lie that UFOs are of “no defence significance”. Why? Because at the time the document was written, “Secret” was defined as information the compromise of which would, for example, “raise international tension”, “damage seriously relations with friendly governments”, “threaten life directly”, or “cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations”. Self-evidently it’s nonsense to suggest that these sorts of definitions could ever apply to a topic of “no defence significance”. If UFOs were genuinely of “no defence significance”, the MoD wouldn’t have spent over 50 years researching and investigating the phenomenon, wouldn’t have commissioned a highly-classified intelligence study on the subject, and wouldn’t have stamped the study’s final report “Secret UK Eyes Only”.

Burroughs: ". . . Rendlesham Forest A FOI request in 2008 revealed that documents on the 1980 sightings by military personnel at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, were held on 109 separate files (DEFE 24/2450/1, p. 79) and MoD had received numerous requests for information on the incident that had become known as "Britain's Roswell.‟ But, responding to an inquiry from the USA in 2008 MoD said: "The incident was over a quarter of a century ago and despite the assertions of many people who chose to believe in the existence of UFOs or extra terrestrials, the MoD had little interest in the matter at the time and even less interest now. Put simply, we consider the incident closed" (DEFE 24/2628/1, p144).

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ufo-highlights-guide-2013.pdf

So Clarke was able to pick out information on key cases such as Rendlesham, offering for public understanding that the MOD thought the issue was settled, but did not include the part where they said observers experienced radiation and other side effects at Rendlesham.

The passage in Volume 2 of Tech/Memo 55/2/00 caught my eye because I was out there that night.
And I have specific medical symptoms that are considered by some very knowledgable people to be a fingerprint of a specific kind of radiation.

To get why that is important, consider this:

There are two possible propulsion systems which can account for the kinds of performance observed by the UAP and which could generate radiation. Both need a lot of power, requiring the mastery of solid-state ZPE energy production, that would account for the performance described in the MOD papers.

One of them is electro-gravitic in nature. The other is the Alcubierre field effect.

Think of the first one as impulse power. Good for floating around the sky in impossible fashion.
Think of the second as warp drive. Good for interstellar travel.

And now consider this:

They emit different types and spectra of radiation. The MOD papers spend a lot of time talking about EM radiation at frequencies down at the level of brainwaves, 1-12 Htz. Neither of which is exactly relevant to propulsion and control.

My medical symptoms are known to come from a frequency range way above that and that range matches the by-product of a theoretical Alcubierre style drive.

http://io9.com/5889628/warp-drives-may-come-with-a-killer-downside

I am not saying I know what the phenomenon was that we encountered.
Only that it was.

I have to consider something that would eventually require me to have open-heart surgery to replace a badly shredded anterior mitral valve to be significant, defence or otherwise.

It does not matter where the hell it came from, whether it's a black budget or another civilization, if the phenomenon leaves that kind of evidence behind it and performs in that manner, it is of considerable defence interest. And if it is indeed the result of a black budget program, then one of the interests would be to conceal that fact. Exactly what the phenomenon was is a discussion for much later consideration.

Finally I have to consider this: maybe Dr. Clarke simply did not see that passage. Or see it as meaningful. Dr. Clarke's obtained his PhD. in Folklore from the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield, in 1999. Perhaps, with extensive training in the field of folklore as a lens for his perception, everything is but an urban myth."

 

[DissectionStalker]

...well calculated Psyops experiment unfolded and we are witnessing MKUltra like aftermaths in the witnesses. There are very limited precedents for this case but there are some parallel, historic threads. The more you look at the different features of this case the more the last option seems to be the most likely IMHO, despite all the weird visual reports. All the fragmentation and conflicts amongst witnesses seems to point to another agent, most likely human, that has been able to successfully divide and conquer the witness material rendering Rendlesham truth a sham no matter how you look at it.

Let me know your thoughts on this Constance after you get a fresh look at the whole pile of data on this case

Constance = constant unshakable belief in ET-UFO's. I'll trust Vallee any day over a hard core believer that won't read both sides of an issue.

Two nuclear weapons from the Bentwaters WSA were flown to Kirtland AFB for analysis two weeks after the events at Bentwaters. How do beams of light {and whatever is contained in and carried by those beams} shut down groups of SAC missiles again and again? How were the two nukes sent to Kirtland affected, changed, by the ufo penetrating the WSA?

Geewiz, Kirtland just happened to be THE BASE for these human UFO's. IMO>Proven by Bennewitz and Valdez and others. Photographic evidence that Chris Lambright got from Bennewitz.

I can see no rational purpose for such a risk-fraught undertaking on a nuclear-armed NATO base during the Cold War.

Can you still say this with a straight face, unwaveringly, constantly, after I posted exactly what Vallee said was happening for 30 years during that time period??? He specifically mentioned RnBt as human PSYOPS.

What was so risk fraught with voice recording and filming taking place and firearms secured about something happening next to and outside the base???

This is classic probing to test security during the major holidays in the wee hours of the morning... that's what humans do. I don't think ET would be interested one-wit to security probe these silly humans just outside their perimeter fences at 3am during the holidays. ET must be insane to do that, since there's lots more interesting things to do on Earth and the Cosmos too. ET would just do more.

No nukes were ever under threat. Period.

 

[Constance]

Your opinions, DS, cut no ice with me. And I'll take Hastings's nukes-ufos research any day over your indirect quotations of Vallee's opinions.

 

[DissectionStalker]

And I'll take Hastings's nukes-ufos research any day over your indirect quotations of Vallee's opinions.

I went far far far beyond indirect quotations. I gave the precise time marks and the C2C interview so anyone can hear for themselves too!

Hastings has no more proof than Vallee has. I trust Vallee. You trust Hastings. I watched ALL the nuke people including Hastings under oath make their case. I bet you still haven't watched Mirage Men?

Btw, the reverse psychology that is EXTREMELY dangerous about Hastings et al is their proclamations that humans must make peace over the nuclear weapons issue, whereas their case for ET Aliens constantly probing nuclear weapons sites and "pulling our pants down" scares the crap out of people... and that FEAR MONGERING is a manipulation to justify MASSIVE military spending including nukes!!!

Hastings is the "idiot tool" of the MIC as far as I'm concerned. A MIC warmonger in disguise! He's the perfect dissonance dupe and useful asset to totally counter real peace efforts to reduce nukes.