The 67th ARRS !?!?

[Simonemendez]

HOLY SMOKES. Why have I (and you too?) Not heard of the 67th ARRS?

I'll start this way. Last night, I was listening to Coast-To-CoastAM. James Fox was a guest along with his two RAF Bentwaters witnesses, Penniston and Burroughs. I was noticing how 'beeleevee' and excited, Fox's tone was, to me, a typical person with the zeal of religious faith, his being, 'The Aliens Are Here'. One of the reasons for this, I found myself understanding. As I listened to the former Airmen, I said to myself, "They sound flawless. HOW for Godsakes, can I NOT believe them too?" I was feeling guilty, that I kinda meanly and closed-mindedly used the word "embellishment", in another forum. I said last night, "Welllll, they don't sound like they are BSing." "I am wrong." I have not had a change of heart on this, by the way. They are sincere, I think.
HOWEVER!!!.......Just out of sheer curiosity, I was doing some search-engine research. A long while back, I ---vaguely--- recalled seeing someone say, "I was there, and hoaxed them..." Or something like that. By-the-way, guess how ***DIFFICULT*** it was for me to find anything negative, as I waded through the masses of Pro-landed ET-spaceship data? Hmmmmm. Whats up with that, anyway?
I did not find ---exactly--- what I was looking for, but I found something MORE interesting. God, I hope this link works. I do not have time to research more about this, today, maybe someone else might. Scroll to 'Section 1'. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ar+-1956+-Lakenheath&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Xylo]

I guess that's an interesting perspective... considering that we cannot verify the presence of an apollo command module at RAF Bentwaters. One would have to ask though, what is an apollo command module doing out there when NASA was ready to go live with the space shuttle? Apparently the last Apollo mission was launched in 1972, and though the military can be slow to move, highly classified items generally do not sit on non-American soil for very long.

Also one would need to ask oneself about the veracity of the "pranks" which the 67th is alleged to have played. Putting stickers on an aircraft and causing it to be grounded should have resulted in at least one court martial but at the very least NJP. (I do believe that the Air Force is subject to the UCMJ, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Using a highly classified item as part of a prank would have definitely resulted in NJP or several courts martial. The following paragraph gave me the shivers...but not for the reasons you would expect:

They manned their HH53 and hooked the capsule underneath on the winch cable, took off and decided to place the module somewhere on one of the airfields for others to find. Flying low over Rendlesham forest, the module collided with one of the Woodbridge approach landing lights causing the module to start swinging. This in turn made the helicopter unstable so they dropped the capsule into the forest.

HH53's are routinely used in cargo transportation...if these guys were recovery specialists they would know what they were doing. They wouldn't have hooked anything on a winch cable, they would have used the cargo hook underneath the helo. Then they would have gained altitude before attempting any sort of maneuvering.

Next, suspended cargo swings. I know, as I have been "suspended cargo" when practicing SPIE rigging for the USMC. I have also witnessed countless UNREPS with some highly skilled USN pilots. Suspended cargo swings, and an HH53 pilot, especially a special forces qualified recovery helo driver would have been aware of this.


Granted this rebuttal is just off the top of my head, but I find more holes in this alternative explanation than I can with the "we don't know what it is, but it wasn't one of ours" explanation.

 

[Ron Collins]

Come on Simon, I usually don't mind your forays but this one is less alternative explanation and more alternative fantasy land. And, you should feel guilty. Being a good skeptic means that you should listen and interpret evidence. First hand accounts ARE evidence. They count in court and they count in these subjects as well. Now you can debate the veracity of a particular witness but not that witness testimony is invalid. Now as witnesses go Penniston and Halt are top notch. To my mind you can debate what they saw and documented and the varies possibilities, but I just do not understand where an objective person believes them to have embellished or hoaxed their part in this.

Though it might be blasphemy here, I share your interpretation of Fox. Fox is a hype guy. A producer, film maker. If he were a puppy he would that very likable, smart, and talented one. But all puppies run in circles and pee. Its just what they do.

(Hmm, that sounded unduly harsh. Not my intent. I am just trying to convey that His energy level is high especially when he gets excited. That makes me nervous when it comes to his stuff. Not trying to say all film makers and producers are hype guys with a dose of ADD. Though, 98% of sales guys, and politicians are. My feeling is that Fox is more sales guy. Admittedly, I don't know the guy and could be wrong. Its just a feeling.)

But Penniston in particular is precisely what he shows. I have absolutely no problem believing him. The guilty part you feel is that you KNOW you SHOULD believe him too. The question that should keep you up at night is why you felt it necessary to post this nonsensical explanation. The rational side of you wants to say, "Yeah, it appears there was some seriously anomalous things that occurred there." but that closed minded world view side says "No, find something that might explain why this is all crap!".

I have no problem with you being an ardent skeptic. I like skeptics. I like to think of myself as practicing skeptical thinking and approach. BUT, you are starting to sound and post as a person who has made up their mind. If thats the case so be it. But stop calling yourself a skeptic and start calling yourself a debunker. Truth in advertising Simon.

 

[Ron Collins]

Simon,

The following is a good tutorial for you in case you want to try on that debunkers hat.

How to Debunk Just About Anything

 

[Simonemendez]

Though it might be blasphemy here, I share your interpretation of Fox. Fox is a hype guy. A producer, film maker. If he were a puppy he would that very likable, smart, and talented one. But all puppies run in circles and pee. Its just what they do.

See. you used the word "blasphemy", which applies to those who go against religious dogma, for whatever reason. I have a PROBLEM with people making the 'Aliens-Are-Here view, their religion. Alternate explanations should be brought forth, not just the 'I-Want-To-Believe' basis. I am impressed with how Xylo picked it apart. I do not have the knowledge to have come from that angle, like Xylo.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

By the way, I am OFFENDED that you refer to my post contributions as "forays" just because you disaree with what I say.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

I have no problem with you being an ardent skeptic. I like skeptics. I like to think of myself as practicing skeptical thinking and approach. BUT, you are starting to sound and post as a person who has made up their mind. If thats the case so be it. But stop calling yourself a skeptic and start calling yourself a debunker. Truth in advertising Simon.

I have my mind made up? EXCUUUUSSSSE MMMMEEEE?
---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

I have absolutely no problem believing him. The guilty part you feel is that you KNOW you SHOULD believe him too.

I explained that I decided that "they are sincere" after listening to them. No one listens to me though, because like I said, hardly no one in Ufology in turn likes me. I should have embellished, er uh, jeeez, I mean, reported, like Cliff Stone and Bob Dean do. Then everyone in Ufology, especially the Congregation here in The Church Of The Paracast, would like me, which would make me scurry around in circles and pee for joy. (Who's leg would I pick? Sooooooo many to choose from).

 

[Ron Collins]

By the way, I am OFFENDED that you refer to my post contributions as "forays" just because you disaree with what I say.

I honestly meant no offense. I used the term as (an attempt to become involved in new activities or disciplines). After your post I looked it up as a curiosity as to why you were offended. Then I saw the (an attack into enemy territory) definition and had a chuckle. My fault in using the term without consciously realizing the overt confrontational manner it could indicate. For that you have my apologies.

See. you used the word "blasphemy", which applies to those who go against religious dogma, for whatever reason. I have a PROBLEM with people making the 'Aliens-Are-Here view, their religion. Alternate explanations should be brought forth, not just the 'I-Want-To-Believe' basis. I am impressed with how Xylo picked it apart. I do not have the knowledge to have come from that angle, like Xylo.

Apparently, my choice of terminology in this post is a sticky point. I meant "blasphemy" as tongue and cheek to the idea that James Fox might not be as humble and interested in forwarding the UFO awareness angle he porports and is more interested in the "look at me " aspect. On this forum, Fox is highly regarded as a champion of the UFO phenomenon awareness movement (trademark pending). As far as I am personally concerned, I do not think we have enough data to discern an origin. Therefore, any speculation is likely ill conceived. With that being said I do think there are more plausible explanations that others. For instance, there is just as much evidence to suggest that the UFO's are actually piloted by sentient super large subterranean amoebas. Though you would have to agree that one is more likely and plausible than the other.

I have my mind made up? EXCUUUUSSSSE MMMMEEEE?

Honestly, havn't you already decided that there is nothing other than the mundane and explainable at work here? Your posts seem to me as indicative of that position. If I am wrong then please tell me how you see things.

I explained that I decided that "they are sincere" after listening to them. No one listens to me though, because like I said, hardly no one in Ufology in turn likes me. I should have embellished, er uh, jeeez, I mean, reported, like Cliff Stone and Bob Dean do. Then everyone in Ufology, especially the Congregation here in The Church Of The Paracast, would like me, which would make me scurry around in circles and pee for joy. (Who's leg would I pick? Sooooooo many to choose from).

Its not about like or dislike. Truth be known I have made my share of waves with board members. I have received hatemail for my views on Greer, Birnes, and Dolan. But please, don't throw names like Bob Dean and Clifford Stone out as the only way you can be accepted in Ufological circles and especially on the Paracast forums. Thats absurd and by now you know it. If you want people to take you and your points seriously, you have to pick the right battles with the right weapons. Otherwise you end up sounding like Bill Nigh the science guy.

Admittedly, I did read the portion of your post wrong. I thought you were saying that Penniston, Halt, and Burroughs were not believable. That is the thing that set me off. So, in the interests of personal disclosure I will say that I was a bit pissed that someone could listen to their testimony and come away with the "they are a pack of liars" interpretation. if I had read it correctly I probably would not have posted at all.

So I am not sure where that leaves us. I didn't mean to offend you as I rarely intend to offend anyone. I do think your mind is made up and you participate here only to try show us all that there are only prosaic explanations to these phenomenon. In that case, a close minded approach thinly veiled as skeptical thinking does ruffle my feathers. I guess thats it.

 

[Simonemendez]

RonCollins, today I have bad news. I NO longer feel positive toward the Bentwaters witnesses. Yesterday, I recieved my latest MUFON HQs Journal. Within, is a report about the Eureka Springs Ufo conclave. Linda Moulton Howe is bandying-about (and influencing, no doubt) at least one of the Bentwaters witnesses, John Burroughs. But Penniston is going over the edge too, in my view. Quote from the Journal. 'In the years following the incident, Penniston underwent hypnosis to unravel the event and recalled that the craft was operated by human time travelers. "They are from the future." Penniston said that all the travelers wanted, was a place to stay while their craft repaired itself. He also recalled learning that the travelers have been coming to earth for 30,000 to 40,000 years. He said they have physical problems, and need human chromosomes from us to sustain their children in the future. "Are they using us like breeding stock?" Penniston was asked. "No, like bandaids," he said.

---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

'Burroughs was engulfed in a red light, and later under hypnosis, recalled communicating telepathically with the craft. "It wanted to pull me toward it. It was strong." He said.


---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Thank you for some of the apologies and self-corrections, I DO appreciate that.

 

[Ron Collins]

RonCollins, today I have bad news. I NO longer feel positive toward the Bentwaters witnesses. Yesterday, I recieved my latest MUFON HQs Journal. Within, is a report about the Eureka Springs Ufo conclave. Linda Moulton Howe is bandying-about (and influencing, no doubt) at least one of the Bentwaters witnesses, John Burroughs. But Penniston is going over the edge too, in my view. Quote from the Journal. 'In the years following the incident, Penniston underwent hypnosis to unravel the event and recalled that the craft was operated by human time travelers. "They are from the future." Penniston said that all the travelers wanted, was a place to stay while their craft repaired itself. He also recalled learning that the travelers have been coming to earth for 30,000 to 40,000 years. He said they have physical problems, and need human chromosomes from us to sustain their children in the future. "Are they using us like breeding stock?" Penniston was asked. "No, like bandaids," he said.

I have not heard this. But, it also doesn't surprise me. I have major issues with the use of hypnotic regression "therapy". I think it is way to easy to insert ideas and let the imagination build on them. To the experiencer, they seem like memories. In fact they can merely be expressions of the experiencers own inner fantasies, interpretations, or origin leanings. Unfortunately, when the human mind experiences something of epoch shattering significance it really struggles to find anything to grab hold of.

For instance, I am not a believer in acupuncture for the healing of cancer. Now, if my wife or child, or myself, was diagnosed with cancer I would try literally anything to save their lives. I think it is a similar thing. Something very odd happened to them. I can understand why someone would convince themselves to undergo that foolishness. Any resolution might help them cope better. Unfortunately that leaves us to try and discern if their testimony is !00% suspect because of those actions. The problem here is that hard and fast rules to discredit all testimony and previous consistency can obscure important facts, clues, and patterns. I think this is where you have to really look hard at the witness, their background, their life situation, and then make a determination.

I think the trap with this is to treat it like chemistry or physics. But, the human mind is not that formulaic. I still trust the initial report and detail. I will need to see how this new information pans out before I am certain how my feelings may or may not change.

 

[Xylo]

I think the trap with this is to treat it like chemistry or physics. But, the human mind is not that formulaic. I still trust the initial report and detail. I will need to see how this new information pans out before I am certain how my feelings may or may not change.

From what I understand, in the way that memory works (and this was from either a psychology or a physiology class many, many years ago) is that each time we re-live or re-remember a memory, we overwrite our current interpretation onto that memory.

For instance a fish that we caught when we were 10 years old may have only been 10 inches across, but for a 10 yr old body that seems pretty large, maybe we held it in both hands and it stretched almost from shoulder to shoulder. But when we remember it as an adult, that fish isn't 10 inches in length anymore, it "grows" relative to how wide our shoulders are at present.

What that means is that memory is not infallible, and is subject to relative interpretation. (It was as big as a house.) Thus the more rapid witnesses are interviewed and statements taken, the more reliable those initial statements are. The older memories, and "new" recollections are nowhere near as reliable as the initial reactions are. Directed questions can lead to directed interpretations.

Further, I believe, after much ponderance on the subject, that hypno-therapy (regression) is unreliable even under the best circumstances.

 

[Mark]

I was stationed with the 67TH ARRS at the time this was supposed to have happened. I was a Crew Chief on the HH-53,s. We were on stand down for the Christmas holiday. All the helicopters were in hangers and no one was on alert. There was a mock Appollo capsule on disply by the guarded front gate. Not only would the Security Police manning the gate would have heard the unbelivable noise that that type of helicopter makes while it is hovering, the entrance is by base housing and half of RAF Woodbridge would have heard it.

As for the pranks, they are true. The Pararescue guys (PJ,s) would spray a stencil of 2 green feet on aircraft and water towers while visiting other bases.

Mark.

 

[mike]

Why do you keep calling her simon ?

Its simone yeah ?

 

[Xylo]

Maybe one of the reasons is because the link in your post doesn't work ... at least it didn't for me.

You do realize that the original post was made in May of 2010, right?

 

[exo_doc]

Mark, you were stationed at Bentwaters in 1980? Do you recall anything to do with the incident itself involving the UAP sightings? I mean, I'm guessing you weren't directly involved, or maybe you were, but scuttlebutt flies around. SO what did you hear if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Mark]

I was stationed at RAF Woodbridge where the helicopters and the Apollo capsule were. I was there during that time and heard noththing. It takes a flight crew of 3 to fly the H-53 which includes 2 officers. It would take aditional crew to operate the sling hook and at least 3 ground crew to get it out of the hanger and onto the flight line to make it ready for flight.

 

[Mark]

Yes. I just stumbled across this site by accident and as you were disussing something that happened 30 years ago I thought you would like some updated info.

 

[trainedobserver]

From what I understand, in the way that memory works (and this was from either a psychology or a physiology class many, many years ago) is that each time we re-live or re-remember a memory, we overwrite our current interpretation onto that memory.

One school of thought says that what is actually stored about any event is meta-data (data about the data) and not the event data itself. When something is recalled it is reconstructed from the meta-data about the event. The memory as presented to consciousness is in essence a re-enactment rather than a replay.