"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

a reply to: mirageman
There's an interesting connection between the New Age cults, aliens, and government mind control programs. Like with Puharich manipulating Phyllis Schlemmer, seeming to be a mind control experiment... he hypnotised other people too in experiments into suggestion, Uri Geller for one. Successfully made people claim things they had no prior belief in.

Do you think Penniston (or any of them) might have been hypnotised into saying the new age stuff later?

a reply to: gortex

First, I apparently was drawing conclusions from the information given in OP and to me this is the way to keep the thread on track.

Second, if you have any issue about the credibility of the report, you should try to prove it wrong/fake. If you prove that the VA has never acknowledged the things I have mentioned, which means there exists fundamental distortion of information in the report, I would thank you. But by just pointing out we do not know what the VA said does not lead to anywhere.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: mirageman
There's an interesting connection between the New Age cults, aliens, and government mind control programs. Like with Puharich manipulating Phyllis Schlemmer, seeming to be a mind control experiment... he hypnotised other people too in experiments into suggestion, Uri Geller for one. Successfully made people claim things they had no prior belief in.

Do you think Penniston (or any of them) might have been hypnotised into saying the new age stuff later?

So here are our choices:

1. People believe in things they never believed in before due to mind control

2. People believe in things they never believed in before because there are certain subjects the MSM won't talk about, and with the advent of the internet this information is finally coming to light and becoming more mainstream?

a reply to: Paperjacket

Second, if you have any issue about the credibility of the report, you should try to prove it wrong/fake.

I cannot judge the credibility of the report without first reading it , I can judge the credibility of those involved in the story about the report from their past actions or statements.

But by just pointing out we do not know what the VA said does not lead to anywhere.

Isn't that the problem though ? , we cannot judge the veracity of the story without the evidence that's supposed to back it up.
For those that want to believe Renlesham was ET the story is enough to bolster their belief , for those that want to know the truth it takes us no further forward.

The above post got 4 stars in 1 minute? What is up with that! After I posted my post I went back right away to look at it, and the new post already had 4 stars! It took me about a minute to read the new post......is there some kind of post-starring bot program at the NSA?

Based on my own foofighter sighting in 1976...I would tend to speculate that a fiery-balled foofighter would give off low levels of neutron radiation [after the starship has landed while still in the on mode]--- since neutron radiation is the result of fusion reactions --- The alien starship would need at least 2 magnetic shields --- surrounding the starship --- in order to contain the fusion plasma, that might be the fuel for a photon propulsion unit in locations that lack starlight photons.

A safe barrier of seawater --- surrounding the starship --- would all that would be needed to stop neutron radiation penetration into the starship itself.

a reply to: gortex

I cannot judge the credibility of the report without first reading it , I can judge the credibility of those involved in the story about the report from their past actions or statements.

Can't you find that you are talking about two totally different things??

The first thing is the credibility of the report.

The second thing is the credibility of the persons involved in the story.

What I am talking about is that I draw my conclusion from the report. If you have any issue concerned with the credibility of the report, you should prove it. Your attitude towards persons involved in has nothing to do with the credibility of the report itself.

BTW, if the report is OK, then you should immedately change your attitude towards those persons because according to the report, the U.S. government have just acknowledged the existence of UFO/UAP in the Rendlesham Forest.

So my suggestion is that you should immediately try to debunk the report and I am couning on you.

Isn't that the problem though ? , we cannot judge the veracity of the story without the evidence that's supposed to back it up.
For those that want to believe Renlesham was ET the story is enough to bolster their belief , for those that want to know the truth it takes us no further forward.

There is a report, and people will of course draw conclusions based on the information. Certainly it could be fake, but until it is proved fake, which means new information comes in, people will stick on their conclusions. Therefore, by just pointing out we do not know what the VA said does not do anything because you do not provide any more information.

What happened in the Rendlesham Forest? If the report is true, there was UFO/UAP, which would also mean those who involed in the story have been telling the truth. But the brutal reality is it remains UNIDENTIFIED and of course could be anything.

a reply to: Paperjacket

What I am talking about is that I draw my conclusion from the report. If you have any issue concerned with the credibility of the report, you should prove it. Your attitude towards persons involved in has nothing to do with the credibility of the report itself.

I think we are talking about two totally different things , the report I'm referring to is the judgement from the VA , if you have access to that then please post a link to it otherwise you're basing your opinion on the press release posted by the individuals concerned.

originally posted by: Paperjacket
What I am talking about is that I draw my conclusion from the report. If you have any issue concerned with the credibility of the report, you should prove it. Your attitude towards persons involved in has nothing to do with the credibility of the report itself.

Are you talking about the report from the Veterans Administration? Where is it? I've spent a fair amount of time looking and can't find it.

I believe there are Paranormal things on our planet and UFO's are a part of it.

originally posted by: Pirvonen
a reply to: mirageman

An excellent find, and an important step.

However, the existence of unrecognized aerial phenomena still does not confirm either the breakaway hypothesis or the extraterrestrials. More poking is needed to get out the information on what the UFOs are.

The breakaway situation is called the forevermen,AKA.Rk's. It started out as normal human beings but through manipulation of dna and other sciences they would be claassified as break away. also the"greys" and other aliens are screen memories. Ocassionally one or two alien ships slip in through quarantine but most of the abductions are government.

Of course it's real. With all the evidence and eyewitness accounts it seems funny that most still need confirmation from the govt. to officially buy into it. The constant lies and misdirection given to their own citizens regarding this topic means to me they have no credibility left, and nothing the govt. says is viable . look elsewhere for the truth

a reply to: gortex

I think we are talking about two totally different things , the report I'm referring to is the judgement from the VA , if you have access to that then please post a link to it otherwise you're basing your opinion on the press release posted by the individuals concerned.

Okay I will from now on use the term "the press release" and "the report" respectively. However I would like to remind you that you miss some important information in the press release because the contact part of that release is the concerned individual's attorney, which means it is not personal and should be of legal validity. Since I would give credibility to such a release, I would like to draw some conclusions based on it. And of course if you have got the VA report especially with totally different results, please do post a link and I would very much to reexamine my conclusions carefully.

a reply to: DelMarvel

No I was talking about the press release of course.

a reply to: Paperjacket

However I would like to remind you that you miss some important information in the press release because the contact part of that release is the concerned individual's attorney

No I didn't miss that , Kandinsky summed that part up Here

Frascogna is an associate of LMH and the 'citizen hearings on disclosure group.' This suggests, to me, that the statement itself is an interpretation by Frascogna that isn't at all the thinking of the VA. Without a release from the VA, we'll have to take his word for it.

www.citizenhearing.org...
I agree that what we have in the press release is an interpretation of the judgment , without the actual judgement we don't know how closely that interpretation is in accordance with the judgment.

The Rendlesham Forest incident is very similar to the March 1978 Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania, USA ---- UFO landing incident --- which also had 3 tripod landing marks in the center of the burnt out grassy landing zone. I also went to the UFO landing zone to investigate the incident myself, about one week later. The area was said to have low radioactive readings from a Geiger counter. The three tripod landing marks were located and staked-out by a local surveyor. The landing did have a local witness...with other witnesses seeing the fiery-balled foofighter in it's aerial phase.

The Fawn Grove UFO landing incident was published in Bel-Air, Maryland, Aegis newspaper, and in one page of the MUFON Journal --- Karl12 is the only person that I know that can give you a link to the MUFON Fawn Grove incident ---- which is labeled the Gatchelleville Pa. case.

Sorry...no pics --- since I don't know how to post my personal pics of the Fawn Grove Pa. UFO landing zone. But I have one pic of the burnt-out landing zone on IMGUR --- if you search Erno86 --- on that picture forum.

a reply to: Erno86

Cool story! Nice to hear from someone close to the situation.

So, after visiting the site and listening to local witness descriptions, what was your overall impression/conclusion of what happened? Do you lean more towards time travelers, other dimensional beings, ET's, secret human projects and/or civilizations?

If you want you could scan your pics, U2U me if you are interested and I could attempt to post them.

I grabbed your picture.

I try to be open minded about these things, but I can't see any burnt patch. I see mostly grass with what might be frost, consistent with that time of year, and a square area of grass where the frost has disappeared, or just dead grass and an area where the grass is starting to regrow.

Do you think anyone colored your original pic from brown/black to green?



Source

originally posted by: Paperjacket
What is the real information in it? I would like to try to summarize the following:

1. The official acknowledgement of existence of UFO/UAP in the Rendlesham Forest back to 1980. The witnesses did NOT lie. Case closed.

2. The official acknowledgement of the radioactivity of UFO/UAP.

3. The official acknowledgement of relationship between UFO/UAP radiation and John Burroughs’s health issue.
(....)

Hey cowboy, slllooooooowwwwwwww down.

Have a look at this:
www.ianridpath.com -
Were the radiation readings significant?...

Resolving the issue

Thanks to the influence and contacts of the British physicist Professor Frank Close the matter was resolved more definitively in 1997 for a television discussion programme produced by London Weekend Television (called Strange But True – Live) on which Professor Close and I were to appear along with Nick Pope and Col. Halt.

My earlier inquiries had shown that the radiation monitor used by Halt and his team would have been of the type known as an AN/PDR-27. On behalf of Frank Close, NRPB contacted the American manufacturers of the AN/PDR-27, who stated that Halt’s peak measurement of 0.1 mR/h was the “bottom reading on the lowest range” of the monitor and was “of little or no significance”. They noted further that these instruments are designed to be used to monitor workplace fields or radiation levels after sizable nuclear incidents and are therefore not suitable for environmental monitoring at background levels. On the basis of this information from the manufacturers, NRPB concluded that using such an instrument to establish a level of 10 times background is not credible.

SO, there's NO official acknowledgment of radiation which has been validated. Halt may have clained to detect it, but later evaluation of what's claimed is proven to be inaccurate and unreliable.

yet again we have claims and no reliable supporting evidence.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Google: Erno86, and go to Imgur Erno86

You can P.M. Karl12...and he might be gracious enough to post the Fawn Grove incident -- but I'm not going to bother him any more since he P.M. me about it on this forum, on one of his threads over at UFO CASEBOOK Forum. I'll have to get to you back later, because I'll have to search that forum for Karl12's specific post about the incident.

It one of my most memorable and historical investigation's of a UFO landing zone [Fawn Grove incident]--- since I did not have the means to investigate my 1976 UFO sighting --- which had the fiery balled foofighter possibly landing on U.S. soil, approx.. 40 miles west of Washington D.C.

I figured the ET's picked the landing zone, because "Fawn" signifies the birth of a deer --- which might equate the birth or beginning of ET attempts to communicate to Earthlings that fusion power is a viable safe alternative to fission power --- with the nearby Delta Peach Bottom nuclear power plant.


One week before the Fawn Grove incident occurred...I made a communication attempt to ET --- even though it might have sparked enough interest for them [ET] too try a near-by foofighter landing attempt; with Fawn Grove being the case.


Cheers,

Erno