The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

[Tyger]

UFO (TV series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i enjoyed that read, brought it all back sheesh i was only 11 when it first aired, i got hooked on babylon5 for a few series, wouldnt miss one, they were on channel 4 at about 1am, thursdays i think, a sci fi soap opera..

I loved UFO - with Straker!

'Recent' love was Andromeda. Not much around now.

 

[Burnt State]

When you look at the idea of the 'best' cases we see that is very subjective based on the researcher and their bias. Isaac Koi is quickly becoming the online Encylopaedic version of Clark when it comes to UFO history. I was very interested in two of his pages with regards to this thread - his top 100 list based on online frequency: 13. The Top 100 UFO Cases - Best UFO Cases - Isaac Koi's UFO website

and his detailed look at the top cases by researcher: 3. Experts' Short Lists - Best UFO Cases - Isaac Koi's UFO website

What I noticed was just how many cases in the top 100 frequency list are cases that have been dismissed by core researchers in the field. Obviously the reading public still laps up a lot false cases including Ray Palmer's fctional writing. Whereas in the researcher breakdown you see how different people use different measures for how they define quality cases.

 

[Derek Wood]

This thread evolved a bit off topic yes?

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[boomerang]

My two cents worth regarding science vs mythology or science vs religion: The differences are more quantitative than qualitative. Modern (post-modern actually) science is simply a more powerful refinement of the kind of modeling of reality, using our brain as a virtual reality generator, that has occurred as long as H sapiens has been sentient. Let's say the best model medieval man had for the night sky was been one of concentric shells holding glowing orbs or angels. We now know it was absurdly flawed. But so is any of our brains internal models in some way flawed. And the flaws are only evident after having been rendered obsolete by better (but still flawed) models. Finding and admitting to the flaws as opposed to stagnating in a state of group consensus is what man as a rational creature is all about.

Our problem with attempts to statistically estimate the likelihood of "life out there", suffers badly from at least two major shortcomings. One is that, despite solid evolution of a steady trend of increasing complexity in earth's biology over billions of years, large gaps in formulating likely mechanisms for the origins of the self-replication process from arrangement of amino acids still exist. Our model of evolution as increasing complexity and diversity seems basically valid, but still missing key components. Invoking the unseen hand of providence is a kind of logical place-holder, a "why" in place of a "how" and leads nowhere. "Whys" are unending and open, and of no value to thinking models. If history is any indication, the 'hows" will eventually fall into place, giving us and the Drake equation greater validity.

The second problem seems pretty obvious. It is not possible to formulate statistical trends based on a sample size of One. Especially in light of the first problem which still leaves the mere existence of our one sample ("us") looking statistically unlikely.

IMO, our models will eventually rise to the task. But we are not there yet.

 

[smcder]

My two cents worth regarding science vs mythology or science vs religion: The differences are more quantitative than qualitative. Modern (post-modern actually) science is simply a more powerful refinement of the kind of modeling of reality, using our brain as a virtual reality generator, that has occurred as long as H sapiens has been sentient. Let's say the best model medieval man had for the night sky was been one of concentric shells holding glowing orbs or angels. We now know it was absurdly flawed. But so is any of our brains internal models in some way flawed. And the flaws are only evident after having been rendered obsolete by better (but still flawed) models. Finding and admitting to the flaws as opposed to stagnating in a state of group consensus is what man as a rational creature is all about.

Our problem with attempts to statistically estimate the likelihood of "life out there", suffers badly from at least two major shortcomings. One is that, despite solid evolution of a steady trend of increasing complexity in earth's biology over billions of years, large gaps in formulating likely mechanisms for the origins of the self-replication process from arrangement of amino acids still exist. Our model of evolution as increasing complexity and diversity seems basically valid, but still missing key components. Invoking the unseen hand of providence is a kind of logical place-holder, a "why" in place of a "how" and leads nowhere. "Whys" are unending and open, and of no value to thinking models. If history is any indication, the 'hows" will eventually fall into place, giving us and the Drake equation greater validity.

The second problem seems pretty obvious. It is not possible to formulate statistical trends based on a sample size of One. Especially in light of the first problem which still leaves the mere existence of our one sample ("us") looking statistically unlikely.

IMO, our models will eventually rise to the task. But we are not there yet.

Our problem with attempts to statistically estimate the likelihood of "life out there", suffers badly from at least two major shortcomings.

One is that, despite solid evolution of a steady trend of increasing complexity in earth's biology over billions of years,

Stephen Jay Gould argued against this:

"In the second example, Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by"

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

large gaps in formulating likely mechanisms for the origins of the self-replication process from arrangement of amino acids still exist.

Our model of evolution as increasing complexity and diversity seems basically valid, but still missing key components. Invoking the unseen hand of providence is a kind of logical place-holder, a "why" in place of a "how" and leads nowhere. "Whys" are unending and open, and of no value to thinking models. If history is any indication, the 'hows" will eventually fall into place, giving us and the Drake equation greater validity.

"Whys" are unending and open, and of no value to thinking models.

Do you mean "whys" as in "why is there anything rather than nothing?" - as in ultimate purpose / teleology? While of "no value to thinking models" - it seems a basic motivation, you don't hear people saying I want to grow up and be a scientist to learn how - they say I want to know why. Is that vestigial? Or is it an evolutionary advantage to have an impossible question because it motivates the questions you can answer - i.e. whys are only answerable by an infinite chain of hows? Or is this a confusion of the kind of satisfying answer we get only when we understand a person's (or other agent) actions - something we always call a why?

But we are not there yet. IMO, our models will eventually rise to the task. But we are not there yet.

I like to think so - but we have only a short history on which this faith in our models is based. Like the idea that evolution trends toward complexity, we have a kind of secular religion in the idea of progress.

The myth of progress - Big Ideas - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

He argues errors in science and technology, once dismissed, tend not to return* whereas errors in political thought and ethics have a habit of coming back again and again.

In this lecture he explains why he sees little progress in the history of ideas.

*The only problem with this is that if we lose the infrastructure on which the history of these errors is recorded (dependent on the internet now) - then we would lose this information in science and technology.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Mr Larry Warren bloody brave man indeed for talking about his strange encounters which has more to the story it seems and the excellent video shows why folks who been anywhere the strange shit happens due to other folks turning on them instead supporting them. Furthermore , Mr Robert Hasting book and this case are the most important focus instead today do it seek to stop nuclear warfare or want control by disarming so called weapon storage facilities? Is this still happening and how about China , Pakistan, India , South Africa, Brazil, Israel and Russia?

 

[Soupie]

Mr Larry Warren bloody brave man indeed for talking about his strange encounters ...

That was excellent. Thanks for sharing.

Although I know the nuclear angle does not explain all sightings, I personally think it and interest in other human tech is the best potential motive for the presence of UFOs - terrestrial or ET.

Here's an account of Warren's experience: http://www.therendleshamforestincid...shamforestincident.com/Larry_Warren.html#2741

 

[Tyger]

Mr Larry Warren bloody brave man indeed for talking about his strange encounters which has more to the story it seems

Whew! This guy is one complicated dude. Not credible. Flat out - this guy has serious problems. It took every ounce of will to watch the guy past half-way and finish the video. This rant is all about getting people to buy his book - if that isn't clear, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya. It's also his apologia for his life.

The interviewer lost all control of the interview. Saying Mr Warren was out-of-himself is a polite way to put it. For some reason he feels he has to prove himself - and I think I know why: he's lying. He is adamant that there was no 'gossip mill' and yet he admits to engaging at the mess table in what amounted to discussion of 'the incident' and got 'ordered down'. He can't have it both ways.

He's spouting nonsense and knows he can't keep the various threads of his story straight anymore. As the saying goes, a liar must have a good memory. I would wager he has stopped talking about the incident because he can't take the questions on facts. Just a hunch. Any observer of human nature will cringe with what is very evident taking place in that piece of video. JMO.

 

[Burnt State]

It semes that Rendlesham is one of those incidents that demonstrates how witnesses may begin to destabilize over time. Only Halt still seems together. When you listen to his Left at Eastgate co-author tell the story it all sounds quite plausible, but that's Peter Robbins' great gift as a raconteur - he could make a technical ingredients' list sound both exciting and purposeful.

Warren's story is all encompassing and does intersect with some other unique features surrounding these bases i.e. the high suicide rate at the British base and suggestions of intimidation of soldiers. But did Warren actually see all he claimed to see? Did he, or his mind, just make it all up? Soon, as these witnesses age, and some of their stories continue to modify, it will all go the way of Roswell.

Question: does anyone know where Warren got those night photos, supposedly of the triangular craft, that appear on the website?

Larry Warren

 

[Soupie]

Whew! This guy is one complicated dude. Not credible. Flat out - this guy has serious problems. It took every ounce of will to watch the guy past half-way and finish the video. This rant is all about getting people to buy his book - if that isn't clear, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya. It's also his apologia for his life.

You say he has "serious problems." I didn't note any serious problems. I didn't have a problem watching "the guy." To me, he seemed very human and sincere.

I wonder if you were reacting to something else?

The interviewer lost all control of the interview. Saying Mr Warren was out-of-himself is a polite way to put it.

The interview format was purposefully informal, narrative driven and about the effects his alleged experience had on his personal/social life.

For some reason he feels he has to prove himself - and I think I know why: he's lying.

The reason might be that he experienced something that others dispute, and that inspite of this, he reaffirms what he has shared over the past 30 years.

He is adamant that there was no 'gossip mill' and yet he admits to engaging at the mess table in what amounted to discussion of 'the incident' and got 'ordered down'. He can't have it both ways.

I agree. However, the "gossip mill" meme was in regards to events before his alleged experience. The incident he relates about the "mess table" occured after his alleged experience.

Again, I wonder if you are reacting to something else?

He's spouting nonsense and knows he can't keep the various threads of his story straight anymore. As the saying goes, a liar must have a good memory. I would wager he has stopped talking about the incident because he can't take the questions on facts. Just a hunch.

He seems to have stopped talking about the incident because it happened 30 years ago, he is now a father, it has apparently caused him some grief, and people call him a liar and a crazy person for sharing his experience and maintaining that it's true. Just like you are aggressively doing, I might add.

Furthermore, he apparently wrote a very thorough, detailed book about his experience which took him 9 years to write. I think referencing the book is a perfectly logical thing to do - especially because the topic of the current video was the event's effect on his life, not the actual event itself.

Any observer of human nature will cringe with what is very evident taking place in that piece of video. JMO.

I am an observer of human nature and I'm not cringing. I actually find your reaction/behavior to be more cringe worthy, haha.

Also, note that many alleged witnesses that have come forward often retreat/refuse to talk any further about an event after a period of years, while still maintaining that their account is true.

As for me, I don't know if this gentleman truly had the experience that he alleges to have had. What I can tell you is that he has apparently gained very little from it besides grief and heartache. There is absolutely nothing in Consensus Science today that would disallow 1) the existence of high tech craft as described by Mr. Warren, and 2) the existence of intelligences capable of creating and operating such craft.

 

[manxman]

ive just finished watching it to, but i have been taking in rendalshem for years here and there, the lighthouse theory is a nonesense, thatchers reply was a good one 'yes but you cannot tell the people that' lord hill norton was tireless in his efforts in the lords to get questions answered, theres no handwaving away rendalsham, but we will never really be any the wiser about it in our lifetimes, because some secrets are never to be told, theres nothing to blow the case open, and i doubt there ever will be.

 

[Tyger]

You say he has "serious problems." I didn't note any serious problems. I didn't have a problem watching "the guy." To me, he seemed very human and sincere.

He seemed wound up. Like on speed or something.

I wonder if you were reacting to something else?

Probably the rant. It was very hard to tease out his points amidst all the blunted personal references. I guess you have to have known the guy's personal history to appreciate what he was going on about. He was talking to an 'in crowd', I guess.

The interview format was purposefully informal, narrative driven and about the effects his alleged experience had on his personal/social life.

It was very obvious that there were a few times the interviewer tried to direct the narrative and got run-over by Mr Warren.

Mr Warren clearly felt comfortable and 'among friends'. There were so many half-finished thoughts it became hard to follow. I am not a Rendelsham aficionado. I don't feel I got any clue about how this incident aversely impacted this man's life except to know that he has had drug, alcohol and marriage problems. Linking this incident to bad choices in life remains fuzzy.

The reason might be that he experienced something that others dispute, and that inspite of this, he reaffirms what he has shared over the past 30 years.

According to the video, I assume he very much needs book sales to go up, so it's a money thing.

I went onto the link supplied by someone else and found this: "Controversy: Although Ufologist Nick Pope, among several others, endorses Warren's story contained in his book Left at East Gate, some military personnel closely involved in the Rendlesham Forest incident have gone on record saying that they refuse to believe that Larry Warren was involved in it at all. His account differs significantly from that of Colonel Charles I. Halt, the most senior witness."

I agree. However, the "gossip mill" meme was in regards to events before his alleged experience. The incident he relates about the "mess table" occured after his alleged experience.

Yes, after - but it shows that he was totally prepared to talk 'openly' about it, suggesting that others probably had talked at other times. Suggesting that people in the same job category with the same security clearance don't talk amongst themselves is untrue. At least not in my experience - they gab all the time. Mr Warren had to have heard the stories imo. His claim to the contrary is a red-flag.

Again, I wonder if you are reacting to something else?

I guess you don't like my very straightforward opinion.

He seems to have stopped talking about the incident because it happened 30 years ago, he is now a father, it has apparently caused him some grief, and people call him a liar and a crazy person for sharing his experience and maintaining that it's true. Just like you are aggressively doing, I might add.

Hmmm.....I am being 'aggressive'. Stating one's opinion - how's that work?

Furthermore, he apparently wrote a very thorough, detailed book about his experience which took him 9 years to write. I think referencing the book is a perfectly logical thing to do - especially because the topic of the current video was the event's effect on his life, not the actual event itself.

He was not coherent. As I say it was all a string of half-finished, suggestive comments. I know from listening that he's been a hell-raiser - apparently - and he's very proud of that. He goes so far as to say he was in the rock scene - okay, should we be intrigued, impressed, appalled? - it's never clear exactly how this incident 'damaged' his life or him. He made his own life choices. The interview started out reasonable, but by mid-way he was devolving. The interviewer tried to straighten the situation out - as I said - but got no where, so let him roll.

I am an observer of human nature and I'm not cringing. I actually find your reaction/behavior to be more cringe worthy, haha.

haha, too. Sorry you feel that way.

What exactly is my behavior that would be cringe-worthy? My reaction/opinion is the guy is lying - and it took him 9 years to get the story assembled. Maybe some little bit happened - maybe he heard stuff (because people with the same clearances do talk amongst each other) - and after 9 years he got the story patched together. I really don't know - he just doesn't present as credible in this video imo.

Also, note that many alleged witnesses that have come forward often retreat/refuse to talk any further about an event after a period of years, while still maintaining that their account is true.

Okay. And that proves what?

As for me, I don't know if this gentleman truly had the experience that he alleges to have had. What I can tell you is that he has apparently gained very little from it besides grief and heartache. There is absolutely nothing in Consensus Science today that would disallow 1) the existence of high tech craft as described by Mr. Warren, and 2) the existence of intelligences capable of creating and operating such craft.

I would have been interested in hearing that story. He didn't deliver that story in this video imo.

I would be interested in just how those 9 years of initial silence played out. Being pals with Mr Streiber is not a good thing. That single mention sends the antennae quivering. P.T. Barnum once said: ""The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it." Contrary to popular belief Barnum's great discovery was not how easy it is to deceive the public but rather how much the public enjoy being deceived. A little bit goes a long way - as the UFO field is replete with examples.

However, there is one thing I did notice and do concur with him: he actually dismisses the notion that the governments are in cahoots covering stuff up. That was interesting. [It's my view - somewhat - with caveats.] I also sensed that he has had enough encounters at UFO meet-ups to be wary of the ott types and he alluded to as much. That in itself makes me think he's probably an okay guy - just got a little too wound-up there in that video with a 'hometown' crowd. (But still spinning a big one, just the same! I won't let him off so easy!)

 

[Soupie]

According to the video, I assume he very much needs book sales to go up, so it's a money thing.

I can appreciate that. However, I didn't have the same feeling after watching the video.

Would he like book sales to go up? I'm sure. Is that part of the reason he agreed to do the interview? Probably. Is that the only reason he agreed to do the interview? Perhaps, but I didn't get that sense. You did. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Is striking a book deal the reason he came out with his story in the first place? Or, is it possible he made up this story to get a book deal? I personally very much doubt it. In fact, I think the idea is silly. You and others might disagree.

His account differs significantly from that of Colonel Charles I. Halt, the most senior witness.

It does indeed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your initial reaction to the video. I'm also unclear why this causes you to apparently think he is lying.

Yes, after - but it shows that he was totally prepared to talk 'openly' about it, suggesting that others probably had talked at other times. Suggesting that people in the same job category with the same security clearance don't talk amongst themselves is untrue. At least not in my experience - they gab all the time. Mr Warren had to have heard the stories imo. His claim to the contrary is a red-flag.

It's possible that I don't understand the "gossip" meme, but my understanding is that it was suggested that prior to Mr. Warren's experience, he heard gossip about the events of the previous two nights. Mr. Warren says there was no gossip.

After the event of the third night, he and some others discussed the event at the mess table.

You seem to be suggesting that Mr. Warren has asserted that people never gossip about secret military events. I'm not sure if Mr. Warren has asserted that. I believe only that Mr. Warren is asserting that he wasn't privy to any gossip about the previous two nights and/or there was no gossip about the previous two nights.

So you might be misunderstanding/construing his words and thus arriving at a "red flag."

I guess you don't like my very straightforward opinion. ... Hmmm.....I am being 'aggressive'. Stating one's opinion - how's that work? ... What exactly is my behavior that would be cringe-worthy?

You said he had serious problems, no credibility, was hard to watch, and was a liar based on an hour long video in which he - at the request of a UFO investigator - answered questions about his life. I watched the same video and didn't have the strong negative, skeptical reaction that you did. I felt your reaction and conclusions were overly strong/aggressive. I thought perhaps there were other things contributing to your reaction.

It's possible however that my reaction is the anomalous one.

He was not coherent. As I say it was all a string of half-finished, suggestive comments. ... The interview started out reasonable, but by mid-way he was devolving.

I agree. But again, I didn't have the same reaction as you.

I know from listening that he's been a hell-raiser - apparently - and he's very proud of that. He goes so far as to say he was in the rock scene - okay, should we be intrigued, impressed, appalled?

I find this reaction interesting. You don't like the outlaw type, huh?

it's never clear exactly how this incident 'damaged' his life or him. He made his own life choices. ... he just doesn't present as credible in this video imo. ... However, there is one thing I did notice and do concur with him: he actually dismisses the notion that the governments are in cahoots covering stuff up. That was interesting. [It's my view - somewhat - with caveats.] I also sensed that he has had enough encounters at UFO meet-ups to be wary of the ott types and he alluded to as much.

No one said it damaged his life. The idea of the interview seemed to be about the background, personal-social aspects of the event. I agree that the interview didn't do a good job of relaying this information.

However, as I said, I found Warren to be sincere and human. The nature of how he answered the questions and the parts of the story that he wanted to elaborate on, perhaps not as clearly or verbose as you would like, are what led me to believe he was sincere.

In any case, at the end of the interview, he indicated that it wouldn't be fair to blame his life "indulgences" on the alleged event, not the contrary.

Soupie sed: Also, note that many alleged witnesses that have come forward often retreat/refuse to talk any further about an event after a period of years, while still maintaining that their account is true.

Okay. And that proves what?

It proves that it's possible some normal, flawed human people experience extraordinary things, share their experiences, get called liars, crazy, frauds, and worse, and react by retreating from public life, while still maintaining their stories are true.

I would be interested in just how those 9 years of initial silence played out.

There wasn't 9 years of silence. Warren's sharing of his experience led to the first piece of evidence that something anomalous had happened coming to public knowledge 3 years after the event. I'm not sure when Warren first shared his experience as linked to above.

 

[Tyger]

I can appreciate that. However, I didn't have the same feeling after watching the video.

Yep, that's clear. It happens. BTW I have a great fondness for certain politicians - rare to find a really good off-the-cuff speaker. Bill Clinton is likely the sole exception. He wears well in conversation - his voice inflection is engaging. Anyway, I have a great fondness for certain politicians but after about an hour I've had enough of their voice. Same thing happened here - the guy was on a rant at the end and his voice just got annoying. He wasn't taking a breath. I wish he had allowed the interviewer to give us a break from his drone.

Would he like book sales to go up? I'm sure. Is that part of the reason he agreed to do the interview? Probably. Is that the only reason he agreed to do the interview? Perhaps, but I didn't get that sense. You did. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

He seized an opportunity to hawk his book. He was actually a last minute replacement for someone else who didn't show. The interviewer explained at the beginning that Mr Warren was doing the interview as a personal favor.

Is striking a book deal the reason he came out with his story in the first place? Or, is it possible he made up this story to get a book deal? I personally very much doubt it. In fact, I think the idea is silly. You and others might disagree.

Now there's a thought. I have to say it crossed my mind as he related his conversation with Mr Streiber.

Tyger had quoted: "His account differs significantly from that of Colonel Charles I. Halt, the most senior witness."

It does indeed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your initial reaction to the video. I'm also unclear why this causes you to apparently think he is lying.

I listened to how Mr Warren assembled his thoughts - how he spoke about himself - how he appeared, and I heard him mis-characterize small little facts. There were enough inconsistencies in the small things - and the glaring fact that he made a money-making venture out of the incident - that says to me the guy is P.T. Barnum's cousin. Plenty of them in the UFO field - to no one's benefit.

It's possible that I don't understand the "gossip" meme, but my understanding is that it was suggested that prior to Mr. Warren's experience, he heard gossip about the events of the previous two nights. Mr. Warren says there was no gossip.

And I say that based on my experience in such situations, people will be talking. With this statement of his, his credibility comes into question: he wants to maintain he did not hear any ideas from hearing gossip. Doesn't wash.

After the event of the third night, he and some others discussed the event at the mess table.

Yes, as likely others had done the previous nights. Which he heard.

You seem to be suggesting that Mr. Warren has asserted that people never gossip about secret military events.

That's what he claimed in the video.

I'm not sure if Mr. Warren has asserted that. I believe only that Mr. Warren is asserting that he wasn't privy to any gossip about the previous two nights and/or there was no gossip about the previous two nights.

I understand the distinction you are making - but Mr Warren, along with the interviewer, both maintained that in military clearance situations no one talks - even to each other. I disagree with this suggestion.

So you might be misunderstanding/construing his words and thus arriving at a "red flag."

I don't think I am misconstruing - both the interviewer and Mr Warren were clear on this point. It's possible I mis-heard but it happens near the beginning of the video so it's easy enough for me to check at some point.

You said he had serious problems, no credibility, was hard to watch, and was a liar based on an hour long video in which he - at the request of a UFO investigator - answered questions about his life. I watched the same video and didn't have the strong negative, skeptical reaction that you did. I felt your reaction and conclusions were overly strong/aggressive. I thought perhaps there were other things contributing to your reaction.

Again, I don't get the aggressive bit, but it is what it is. Regardless of how you think I came across in text, my opinion stands and opinions in themselves are not aggressive. Maybe you think I am being unduly harsh - but anyone who is trying to get me to buy their book I will critique. He just doesn't 'hang together' - he comes across as someone with a very personal agenda. Easiest answer: money.

It's possible however that my reaction is the anomalous one.

No need to compare. It is what it is. Why do responses have to be similar?

Tyger said: "I know from listening that he's been a hell-raiser - apparently - and he's very proud of that. He goes so far as to say he was in the rock scene - okay, should we be intrigued, impressed, appalled?"

I find this reaction interesting. You don't like the outlaw type, huh?

How do you get to that from what I said? My point was that it was an example of his presenting himself as a rugged manly kind of guy - and he made a point of the rock scene. There was a sub-text going on. Men among men.

No one said it damaged his life. The idea of the interview seemed to be about the background, personal-social aspects of the event. I agree that the interview didn't do a good job of relaying this information.

What? I'm not going to go back into the posts to dig out that one. We'll just leave that. Leave even what he said.

However, as I said, I found Warren to be sincere and human. The nature of how he answered the questions and the parts of the story that he wanted to elaborate on, perhaps not as clearly or verbose as you would like, are what led me to believe he was sincere.

Oh, no, no, no - he was plenty verbose. So verbose, the interviewer couldn't get a word in edgewise. Just far from clear.

In any case, at the end of the interview, he indicated that it wouldn't be fair to blame his life "indulgences" on the alleged event, not the contrary.

Oh, nice. I didn't catch that - so why did he regale us with it? It sounded like an apologia for his life. Not for nothing did the interviewer ask of the audience at the very end: was this worth it?

It proves that it's possible some normal, flawed human people experience extraordinary things, share their experiences, get called liars, crazy, frauds, and worse, and react by retreating from public life, while still maintaining their stories are true.

I see. Understood. But he isn't retreating.

There wasn't 9 years of silence. Warren's sharing of his experience led to the first piece of evidence that something anomalous had happened coming to public knowledge 3 years after the event. I'm not sure when Warren first shared his experience as linked to above.

His book came out 9 years after the fact. Waiting 3 years is also interesting. The passage of time works for the person who is going to hoax. Memories blur - details wash out - and it's in those blank spots that the clever spinner steps in.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Tyger,
Yes its a complicated case ? thanks to many folks input and like he says were you there? Have been on these bases?

 

[Tyger]

Tyger,
Yes its a complicated case ? thanks to many folks input and like he says were you there? Have been on these bases?

Fair question. I am not inclined to go into details but I am acquainted with how clearance situations work. So saying, that does not make me an authority about anything. I am always bemused by those who claim authority because they worked under a clearance - there are a few levels, but even with a Q Clearance one is not omniscient. To be clear, whatever I say is just my opinion.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Tyger,
Well said and have to disagree on the aspect in the mess especially when others are watching! Let's not forget this base was not your everyday grunts base rather high secured facility which held highly advanced weapons which other eyewitness have eluded too. Also the fact now released files show Bentwaters ! Was the subject of odd incident. One factor which got my attention was the. Interviewer spoke about weapons conduct prior too the incident and after . Now at that period in history all personal at the wire were armed too the teeth due to home grown terrorism, Cold War and anti nuclear weapons demonstrators brigade. Do you remember what sat along the runways ? Not just for show theses Were primed ready to go at any given order. Larry Warren saw some weird shit and read his book and others he been put through the mill by some insiders working in Ufology for what agenda is clear to muddy the waters on who's pay roll? Let's wait for Col Halts new book?

 

[boomerang]

The one thing we can say about Rendlesham is the same thing we can say about Roswell: Something strange happened, leaving a trail of confused witnesses and no material evidence behind, and no one apparently knows why.

I've read "Left At East Gate" at least once. It's a well crafted work. I think a bit too much of it is solely about Larry Warren's assertions. Warren comes across as a kind of witting or unwitting dis-info agent, possibly a victim of having been, as Halt asserts, "meddled with". But the whole incident is so strange and so confined to military protocols that sorting out victims from instigators and from the just plain perplexed, seems impossible.

As is so often the case with this phenomenon, the story with which we are left is one of individual experiences and personalities. This much has not changed over the years.

 

[Tyger]

The one thing we can say about Rendlesham is the same thing we can say about Roswell: Something strange happened, leaving a trail of confused witnesses and no material evidence behind, and no one apparently knows why.

I've read "Left At East Gate" at least once. It's a well crafted work. I think a bit too much of it is solely about Larry Warren's assertions. Warren comes across as a kind of witting or unwitting dis-info agent, possibly a victim of having been, as Halt asserts, "meddled with". But the whole incident is so strange and so confined to military protocols that sorting out victims from instigators and from the just plain perplexed, seems impossible.

As is so often the case with this phenomenon, the story with which we are left is one of individual experiences and personalities. This much has not changed over the years.

"Warren comes across as a kind of witting or unwitting dis-info agent, possibly a victim of having been, as Halt asserts, "meddled with". "

Could you explain? I confess I know only as far as a documentary - which I think was biased in the negative - about this incident. I have since learned things that suggest it's a more substantial incident. The idea that Warren was 'meddled with' resonates for me. My impression was he is 'shattered' somehow - I said he was coming across as on speed - but his very life as he described it could have done the 'shattering'. Still, the effects of mind-altering drugs during an interrogation can scramble the best of them - and Warren did reference the military using drugs in the de-briefing as I recall. What did Halt mean by 'meddled with'?

 

[trainedobserver]

What did Halt mean by 'meddled with'?

I think the implication is that they were drugged, possibly hypnotized, or otherwise mentally conditioned in some way as to alter or implant memories of that night.

Warren talks about being drugged and taken to a hidden part of the base where he saw other UFO-like craft and had a strange encounter. If I'm not mistaken Burroughs and Penniston also talk about being aggressively "interrogated". I'm not sure, but one of those two might have talked about being "injected" with something.