Rendlesham Forest: Radiation Injuries & Causes

a reply to: mirageman

I agree. I don't think it likey that location was random if a vehicle was involved. If it was psycho social, the location wasn't random. If it was natural, it's still possibly related to the location.

The craft over the base, I'm not sure of. The lack of alert is very telling, but I'm not there yet. I think the above post relates something that might substantiate John's injuries and their relation to the RFI. Apparently non ionising radiation doesn't alway behave according to classical electrodynamics!

And by utilising very low power, the heat damage can be avoided, but biological changes caused, using a combination of multiple frequencies (as opposed to one), various waves types, pulsing and other techniques.

For what it's worth, in terms of how often any "craft" may have been present, there was, on the first night.

All the crap from the two proceeding evenings, or whatever you wanna call that chunk of time after the initiation of the dog & pony show, was generated by the original brains exposed to the craft, still reeling from what they had been exposed to, and the folks near them that had been influenced enough by the narratives of the original brains to then also contribute meaningfully to the narrative.

a reply to: mirageman


Well thanks for that truly informative post there matey, hats off for the research work there!

originally posted by: mirageman

Because this is where the trail appears to have ran cold.

I´ve found that tends to happen a lot in UFO (and USO) research.

Here is the paper in question. The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC

a reply to: Bedlam

Edit: never mind going round in circles....


Obviously other black projects fly/operate around the UK ( North Sea Triangle, Boscombe Down) but in both instances all possible risks were mitigated even though something went wrong (either OPSEC or hardware).

No one can plan for a top aircraft spotting expert to be on a North Sea Oil Rig but hovering around Rural England at Military bases that aren't briefed on your activities seems like too much of an oversight to be plausible.

a reply to: Jukiodone

And there are also people who believe in the stories that appeared on here a long time ago.

The one that deals with Rendlesham : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well it has serious plot holes.

a reply to: ctj83

..........The paper refers to itself as "admittedly Buck Rodgers". I'd be surprised if Kit wasn't referring to this paper, or the papers and research he referenced, when he spoke of John's injuries and little known research.

I suspect this has a lot to do with what Kit may have been referring to. Although I've only skimmed through it.

Excellent find ctj

a reply to: mirageman

Hence my surprise at Bedlam also taking the "exotic craft failure/emergency" angle.

I suppose it would be sod's law that you have literally hundreds of black projects that have flown over the last 50 years and all the ones we know for sure exist ( SR72, B2, F117, F22, F23, BOP etc etc) never underwent such momentous failures in OPSEC.

I suppose if you were dealing with some sort of revolutionary propulsion mechanism mishaps would happen - and they might be of the variety not usually planned for- but I've never heard a good reason for their frequency of OPSEC failures versus "real" black projects (they are over your house using your brain as a computer is a good effort but ultimately doesn't make sense either).

a reply to: ctj83

I'd almost forgotten about this but you may also find this interesting.

Larry Warren's book "Left At East Gate" contains the results of tests made on the soil from the 3rd night 'landing site' at Capel Green. The samples were not taken until the late 1980s. However :-


Click to enlarge above picture

The bullet points of it are that

* The soil had lower moisture content than the control sample

* The affected soil was resistant to re-hydration. Water, when applied, wouls "roll" off the sample.

* The affected soil showed higher degrees of silicate or glass globules..indicating they had been fused.

* The landing site soil showed no signs of microbial growth.

It concludes

".....I can only think of two things which could account for this....a sterilizing agent such as gamma radiation or intensely applied heat....the appearance of glass globules...indicated somehow the soil had been oxidized to such an extent that the pH levels were altered......"


Source : Left At East Gate (Google Books Link)

a reply to: mirageman

I think at this point we have enough diverse medical evidence, anecdotal evidence and the above to say that unless the whole event didn't happen, it likely involves some form of radiation.

Part of the problem is discerning if that radiation was ionising, non-ionising or some combination.

RFI isn't exactly full of certainties, so for now, I prefer to go with "most likely" scenarios for the smaller elements, disregarding the overall 'bigger picture'. For instance, it would be easy to rule things out, or in, based on natural phenomena, a nuclear accident, a black project, or psychological experiment.

To progress forward, I'm going to take it that Kit is (as he always claims to be), honest, if not always providing full details.

Possible evidence of a non-ionising source of radiation:
- Kit Green's references to John Burrough's injuries being from specific narrow bands of RF
- Presence of John's injuries and medical records
- Anecdotal evidence of radiation injuries to Warren - and 'arc eye' injuries to numerous participants
- All injuries are close to those expected from ionised radiation, with two exceptions - not fatal, and not developing in timescales expected with typical exposure
- USAF Electromagnetic spectrum -paper referencing early 80s papers on non-classical Electrodynamics for specific, narrow types of RF, including biological effects
- Project Condign


I'd like to suggest that there is some connection or awareness, on the part of the Condign Report, the author of 'Electromagnetic Spectrum In LIC' and the RFI. It's only a 'best guess' - but I think it likely that whatever RFI was, it informed both those papers and the references they make.

It's quite clear that a traditional (or classical) view of non-ionising radiation would rule it out as the source, and suggest (as I initially believed) that the RFI involved large doses of ionising emissions. I now believe that this is incorrect and we are looking at a phenomena that is largely composed of emissions:

- related to plasma generation
- unrelated to plasma generation and used for specific tasks

Again, I think the paper 'Electromagnetic Spectrum In LIC' reinforces that the greatest exposure probably relates to one or more of the following - uv,radar, ELF, terahertz. Even if we were to dismiss the papers proposals and citations as incorrect, and classical physics being totally correct, the timescale matches up too well with the RFI, and the injuries match up too well with Kit's statement and the paper.

As such, I'm going to proceed ahead under the assumption that the paper is correct in its conclusions and that Kit has given us an honest appraisal of John's medical records and injuries.

Next stop, is there any more research expanding on this EM phenomena, and any known natural correlations.

a reply to: ctj83

This guy had similar thoughts to you and references condign:
hozturner.blogspot.co.nz...


From Condign Report:

"Occasionally and perhaps exceptionally, it seems that a field with, as yet, undetermined characteristics, can exist between certain charged buoyant objects in loose formation, such that, depending on the viewing aspect, the intervening space between them forms an area (viewed as a shape, often triangular) from which the reflection of light does not occur. This is a key finding in the attribution of what have frequently been reported as black 'craft,' often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length." These plasma formations also have the effect through "magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field), appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses. Local fields of this type have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result in the observer sustaining his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what is experienced. This is suggested to be a key factor in influencing the more extreme reports found in the media and are clearly believed by the 'victims"


TLDR:

If you see any triangular, black, silent patches of sky; never fear, its just the PLAZMAS from METEORZ.

We dont know how it persists or have any further data (beyond certain references to certain technologies which we redacted) but I'm sure you will find this clears it all up.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Thanks Jukiodone - that was very enlightening. I suspect we're on the same page as to how much it really clears up.

Whilst I don't dismiss a natural plasma based phenomena, or a natural sentient plasma based phenomena, I'm more of the opinion that the RFI was the result of some form of highly controlled emissions of very narrow bands of RF for specific purposes.

Kit refers to John's injuries being the result of non-ionising radiation, but of a narrow RF type and not resulting in typical injuries (e.g. heat).

The paper I posted a few, er, posts back The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC discusses how RF emissions can be made to behave and interact in very non standard (read non classical physics) ways.

This opens the door for non ionising RF to have created John, and others injuries - without the usual heat damage. In fact the very existence of this paper, a few years after RFI - strongly hints that it connects in some way to the incident.

It's primarily this statement that makes me tend towards some form of natural phenomena: that a change in frequency of less that .01 hertz can totally change how the emission behaves. It's that narrow range, that fits in with Kit Green's own narrow range comment.

The unusual effects described by the The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC are not just due to precise frequencies, but manipulating the wave form, phasing, frequency combination and probably other techniques I've not picked up on.

In short, we're looking at non ionising radiation behaving in non classical ways. In other words (and not in any 'woo' sense of the phrase) - probably better explained by Quantum Electrodynamics (according to The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC )

I find it hard to believe that such narrow, specific requirements occurred by accident.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ctj83

I'd almost forgotten about this but you may also find this interesting.

Larry Warren's book "Left At East Gate" contains the results of tests made on the soil from the 3rd night 'landing site' at Capel Green. The samples were not taken until the late 1980s.
[...]

It concludes

".....I can only think of two things which could account for this....a sterilizing agent such as gamma radiation or intensely applied heat....the appearance of glass globules...indicated somehow the soil had been oxidized to such an extent that the pH levels were altered......"


Source : Left At East Gate (Google Books Link)

Interesting..

3 weeks later, on January 8 1981, a French farmer watched a UFO touch down shortly at a farm in Trans-en-Provence.
Soil samples were investigated and according to Wikipedia:

the ground had been compressed by a mechanical pressure of about 4 or 5 tons, and heated to between 300°C and 600°C.

In the 50’s, Ruppelt ordered an investigation of soil samples from a location where a scout master witnessed a UFO hovering 30 feet above him. A red fiery ball came out of the UFO, enveloped the scout master and made him pass out.

the lab called me about the grass samples we'd sent in. "How did the roots get charred?" Roots charred? I didn't even know what my caller was talking about. He explained that when they'd examined the grass they had knocked the dirt and sand off the roots of the grass clumps and found them charred. The blades of grass themselves were not damaged; they had never been heated, except on the extreme tips of the longer blades. These had evidently been bending over touching the ground and were also charred. The lab had duplicated the charring and had found that by placing live grass clumps in a pan of sand and dirt and heating it to about 300 degrees F. over a gas burner the charring could be duplicated. How it was actually done outside the lab they couldn't even guess.

www.nicap.org... the story starts at page 176.

Ruppelt also had some interesting info on radiation: www.nicap.org...

According to Paul R Hill,

X-rays would penetrate a few inches of soil, giving up their energy to plant root depths. Soil being a thermal insulator, the heat would escape slowly and the temperature would build up with time below a low hovering UFO.

So what caused the fogged film of Nevels? According to his Earthfiles interview, he developed the film himself and it was fogged.

originally posted by: ctj83
Here is the paper in question. The Electromagnetic Spectum In LIC

I know this paper is supposed to be iconic amongst the "targeted individual" set, but it's obvious that Tyler isn't very versed in RF. He makes tyro level mistakes all through it.

Also, you should know that military papers like this aren't typically vetted the way a proper scientific paper would be.

This is a summary the guy wrote up, in a field he's not versed in. An actual paper would be full of math and stats.

Here's you something to think about...when is a propagating radio wave not like having wires hooked to you? It's a typical thing for someone not versed in physics/fields to screw up, and he does it several times.

As a mental image, here's one that's a similar issue that came up on ATS years ago...

There's a metal powerline tower with a 250kV three phase line on it. It's 25 meters tall. From the line at 250kV to the ground at 0V, you've spread the field over 25 meters, so you have a measureable 10kV/meter field. The tower has a total resistance of maybe 50 ohms over 25 meters. It's in the 10kV/meter field. Therefore, it's obvious that about 2MW of power should flow in the tower, and it ought to melt in a smoky foof. But it doesn't even get warm. Despite being in an electric field with a known value. Why not?

When you see someone tell you that you can honk some RF at someone and induce gross current flows, and for a comparison they use a device hooked to someone or something with a wired metallic connection, they do NOT understand the physics involved. And about half the problem is the same as the powerline tower, if you figure that one out.

When you see that level of error, you'd be well served to look up the other substantiating info they present and examine their veracity and the guy's conclusions about how it relates to his point.

Physicians are, in general, not very good with physics. Most of them get one non-calculus based physics class, and no more than one calculus course. It's just not something they need. When you see an MD talking about fields, and there's no one they are citing as a co-author on the subject, and there's no math, it's time to be picky about their conclusions.

eta: time for another anecdotal CSB moment -
We used to be in Huntsville, and were very active doing contract work out at Redstone/MSFC, along with all the other TLAs in the area.

A fairly highly placed officer at Redstone, whose name will go unmentioned, but they would have been about the same rank as your guy Tyler, only Army, decided that the government needed to put this computer virus thing away once and for all. So this person, who wasn't (obviously) a ninny and was your typical Army officer who was supervising things they weren't exactly good at, also sort of similar to your guy, decided that they would show those crazy dumbasses at DISA, and wrote a paper (and it's rated 'confidential') that showed that viruses couldn't be carried over light waves. So all that would be needed would be to pass all net traffic through a device that had a "fiber optic firewall" inside it, and the viruses would be removed. And they gave us an RFQ for it.

It's one of the few jobs that was just too loony for us to take, and believe me, we've got few scruples to charging the gubmint for stupid designs.

a reply to: Bedlam

Hey Bedlam, thanks for that, food for thought!

I think at the least this paper moves us from your inference that Kit was throwing out intentional disinformation, to 30 years of erroneous, disinformation that Kit relied on.

Do you have any theory, Why would Kit reference a series of technically incorrect paper from 30 years ago, when he simply could say, "it was ionising radiation that caused Johns injuries."

Apologies if I'm incorrect, but are you proposing any of the following:
- that johns injuries are not from the RFI?
- that Kit gave Johns primary care team technically incorrect information?

Do you believe that there could be any connection between what Kit describes and this paper?

a reply to: ctj83

on the whole "just Kit dropping some knowledge on Rendelsham" thing; there are 2 candidate scenarios:

Kit believes that his credibility and reputation as an MD will not be affected by him doing a public internet drive-by in a professional capacity on a famous UFO case where he makes assertions when he is neither an expert or has any evidence.

Or

Kit is privy to information which he cant share but will tell you a rough outline of exactly what happened -plus a great anecdotal tale about how Burroughs files are in the same classification as Hitler and JFK's- before not elaborating any further.

Both scenarios are tremendous in their own way.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Bedlam

Hey Bedlam, thanks for that, food for thought!

I think at the least this paper moves us from your inference that Kit was throwing out intentional disinformation, to 30 years of erroneous, disinformation that Kit relied on.

Do you have any theory, Why would Kit reference a series of technically incorrect paper from 30 years ago, when he simply could say, "it was ionising radiation that caused Johns injuries."

Apologies if I'm incorrect, but are you proposing any of the following:
- that johns injuries are not from the RFI?
- that Kit gave Johns primary care team technically incorrect information?

Do you believe that there could be any connection between what Kit describes and this paper?

Ok - sorry not to get back quicker. It's my first night back after five weeks off, and I've got a lot of catching up to do here, won't be back to fully answer until maybe Tuesday. But, in the meantime, as food for thought, consider the statement "Further, the passage of 100 mA through the myocardium can lead to cardiac standstill and death, again pointing to a speed-of-light weapons effect"

This is literally true, 100 mA of DC current sent through the myocardium with exquisitely precise timing near the end of the refractory period can cause the triggering of multiple competing ventricular pacing sites, which can lead to torsades, then vf and death. However, two things are also true. You can't do that with RF. RF of a frequency that will interact well with the human body in terms of wavelength vs body length is going to be pretty high frequency. Say 1/2 wavelength about 0.5 meters for a guess at the width of a chest, and you're talking 300 MHz more or less. At 300 MHz, you're not going to have the same effects on the heart, since the heart's pacing system and the myocardial cells are not going to "see" it as a stimulus. They operate on a much slower time scale. The other issue you've got is that the RF power density to induce 100mA of RF current in a human heart at a distance is going to be stupendous. Really off the scale. Even IF you got the same effects with VHF that you do with DC, and you don't, you've got to have hell's own power density to make that happen.

Ignoring field line bending due to impedance mismatch, reflection, refraction and everything else, you're talking probably 10W/m^2 delivered power density. But at 300MHz, you have to deal with skin effect and the way your torso is made as well - lungs are not very dense and are of a lot higher resistance than the heart, and most of the energy's going to want to run around the outside through the skin, ribs and costal musculature. There's not a straight shot for RF across the chest that's not around the outside. So in order to put that much power through the myocardium, you're going to have to have a lot more than that. But 10W/m is a lot of power density to start with, and 300MHz is going to be a nice heat source but not so much a good signal for stimulating myocardium to contract.

A lot of the other examples of doom in the paper are the same sort of thing, they compare the effects of a DC or near DC stimulus and then assume that you can get the same sort of thing by just honking RF at it, but it's apples and parakeets.

SOME of it's actually relevant. Some of it's an oversimplification or a mischaracterization - for example, there's a section where they try to handwave Maxwell by saying you can shine a light through someone's hand therefore Maxwell is irrelevant, but they're jumping regimes going from RF to light. You also can't focus gamma rays with a glass lens, but you can light, and they're both EM. The reason why not is that gamma rays don't act like light for a lot of substances, because the dispersion that makes glass lenses work for visible light doesn't hold for gamma rays. Thus, it's sort of chancy to make big leaps in the EM spectrum and try to draw that sort of conclusion. Or I could say, for example, since gamma rays can't be focused with glass lenses, that glass lenses don't work. That's the logic they're using, and it's just sort of bogus.

I haven't had the time to go parse out the original papers they're citing - were they done by someone reputable, was the experimental setup something you could believe could get the data they're claiming, was it replicated, were any flaws found by the next guys that tried it and so forth. But given the problems I'm seeing just on a first pass, I don't know if I buy their cites either without further investigation.

Back to the "injuries caused by narrow band RF" claim. Again, I'm hard pressed to know what sort of test or diagnostic would tell a physician that. Or what the physical signs and symptoms would be of such an injury, and why a physician would be familiar with it. The statement seems bizarre on face value.

So here's my counter question/speculation - did the person claiming the narrow band RF statement (and remember, there's no explanation of how the MD was able to come to that conclusion, and the conclusion can't be examined because it's classified, thus you have to take the guy's word for it with no rationale, sim sala bim) concoct a set of findings to match the paper? I'm not aware of any diagnostic, test, or study that shows a way of diagnosing injuries as being the result of specifically narrow band RF. Any good CW transmitter will happily provide you with narrow band RF, btw. It's not a mystic thing, you're just honking a very stable RF source through a RF power amplifier. Given the length of time that people have been doing that, I'm shocked that all of us RF guys don't have a plethora of narrow band RF injuries.

a reply to: Bedlam

Looks like I was wrong on the heating aspect Bedlam. I've not found any evidence of chest injuries yet (which you mentioned) but I think that the following is telling.

It's from January 2016 Fortean Times and is part of an interview between John Burroughs and Jenny Randles in 1989, before John went public. It describes how he felt as got closer to the phenomena.

“It was like static electricity in the air and was very uncomfortable. I have never felt anything like that before. I felt really hot and my hair was standing up on the back of my head”.