Ongoing Internet --- UFOs are real vs. They are not-- mutli-page civil war.

[Skymon876]

So instead of clogging up all the other threads with I HAVE NOT SEEN A UFO therefore they do not exsist vs. I saw a UFO so they exsist, and debating each case

I thought I would start this thread to debate IN A CIVIL MANNER in accordance with forum rules. For those of us who engage in constant round and round debate and discourse. PLEASE BE CIVIL. If you make a claim please be ready to back it up. No personal insults.

Instead of bogging down the rest of the forum lets keep it in one thread.

1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouse
or
b. they saw a triangle UFO

2. Pilot sightings a. they saw a flock of birds
b. they saw a foo fighter
c. they saw an unidentified oval object

3. Phoenix Lights a. they saw flares
b. a balloon
c mile wide boomerang

Some analysis that shows how the Rendlesham could be an illusion of the lighthouse and or the skeptic conclusion of "flurrying fertilizer from a passing truck"

 

[Martina]

I believe that the lighthouse visible from the area at Rendlesham the men who saw the lights were in had a curved metal plate behind the beacon so that it could not have shown in their direction. This fact has been left out of nearly all accounts of the incident.

Moreover, they sighted multiple craft in the area, and from their individual testimonies those craft were moving and maneuvering, which is not something a lighthouse can do.

I am satisfied that they saw what they testified to having seen.

 

[trainedobserver]

I am satisfied that they saw what they testified to having seen.

I certainly agree with that. There are simply too many collaborating witnesses and then there is the soil sample evidence. We need to be aware that It's been manipulated and spun by [censored] , don't doubt that for a minute.

 

[TClaeys]

I believe that the lighthouse visible from the area at Rendlesham the men who saw the lights were in had a curved metal plate behind the beacon so that it could not have shown in their direction. This fact has been left out of nearly all accounts of the incident.
.

I've also heard this about the lighthouse. But in all consideration I don't know what is true. Why??
Well, if you look at the article I'm linking to, there are pictures of the light from the very lighthouse that is not supposed to be visible from the mens vantage point. Yet there it is, bright and pulsating just as the skeptical community says. Scroll down some to look at the pictures. There is even a video that shows the lighthouse flashing. So, I don't know how much credence there is in the claims that the light could not have been seen when you apparently can see it.

What the heck do you suppose the real truth is here??

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

Of course there also is the claim that a security policeman (Conde) hoaxed the men with a squad car (red and blue lights) and shining white lights. I'm not trying to defend the case either way. I'm as confused as anyone with what really went down those nights. But I suppose if there is going to be rational discussion then all claims should be thrown in. This has always been a confusing case for me to understand because of the many varied reports and claims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml

 

[Xylo]

So instead of clogging up all the other threads with I HAVE NOT SEEN A UFO therefore they do not exsist vs. I saw a UFO so they exsist, and debating each case

I thought I would start this thread to debate IN A CIVIL MANNER in accordance with forum rules. For those of us who engage in constant round and round debate and discourse. PLEASE BE CIVIL. If you make a claim please be ready to back it up. No personal insults.

Instead of bogging down the rest of the forum lets keep it in one thread.

1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouse
or
b. they saw a triangle UFO

2. Pilot sightings a. they saw a flock of birds
b. they saw a foo fighter
c. they saw an unidentified oval object

3. Phoenix Lights a. they saw flares
b. a balloon
c mile wide boomerang

Some analysis that shows how the Rendlesham could be an illusion of the lighthouse and or the skeptic conclusion of "flurrying fertilizer from a passing truck"

1: They saw something that they could not identify.

2: There are many sightings from pilots ranging from clouds to birds to unidentified craft.

3: There were two consecutive incidents in Phoenix; first was a large triangle shaped craft and second were military flares.

I don't know what any of the above sightings were, but taking things down to their basest level seems to work for me. I don't try to source these sightings.

 

[ArchieBedford]

1. Rendlesham ---- a. they saw a lighthouse or b. they saw a triangle UFO

The Rendlesham Forest incident was not about lights seen in the sky. It was about broken tree branches, a multiply-witnessed three-dimensional object on the forest floor, deep triangular impressions of landing gear in the soil, elevated radiation levels, a large circular area of burned and dessicated soil at in the field at Capel Green on the edge of the forest (ask Peter Robbins about the lab analysis on the soil and control samples taken from nearby), about two nuclear-armed military bases going on high alert and mobilising hundreds of men, the base sunsequently being visited by a swarm of AFOSI officials, an official paper trail of correspondence between the USAF and the UK government, and nuclear ordnance being affected by beams of light fired down into the reinforced steel/concrete missile housings. There are scores of credible witnesses to most of this.

If you want to understand everything involved in the incident and its aftermath, I recommend Georgina Bruni's book "You Can't Tell the People" (a direct quote from Margaret Thatcher to the author about the UFO issue in government).

Lighthouse, indeed.

 

[Kandinsky]

I've also heard this about the lighthouse. But in all consideration I don't know what is true. Why??
Well, if you look at the article I'm linking to, there are pictures of the light from the very lighthouse that is not supposed to be visible from the mens vantage point. Yet there it is, bright and pulsating just as the skeptical community says. Scroll down some to look at the pictures. There is even a video that shows the lighthouse flashing. So, I don't know how much credence there is in the claims that the light could not have been seen when you apparently can see it.

What the heck do you suppose the real truth is here??

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.htm
l

I don't like the guy...or at least, I don't like the character that comes across online. He's totally dismissive of UFOs and *shock horror* is an associate of CSI (csicop) from way back. He's part of the school of thought whereby UFO witnesses require discrediting as bad characters, liars, hoaxers or simpletons. In his various online posts, I perceive a gloating sense of egotistical superiority. At the same time, he's quick to dismiss any and all accounts of UFO witnesses as hearsay and yet will accept the testimony of counter-claimants on face value. A pretty shit skeptic.

With all that said, it's hard to ignore some of the points he raises about Rendlesham. He's done a hatchet job on Penniston...basically characterised him as a wilful liar with an inability to separate TV movies from reality. A despicable lying idiot is about the sum of his opinion on Penniston. Nevertheless, between him and Dr Clarke, Rendleshem is a case that holds little interest for me. I can't decide which side is the more truthful and have moved on...