It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Imagination? Tell that to Sergeant Jim Penniston who actually touched the craft during the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Add to the fact the entire incident was recorded in real time on audio tape, there was physical indentations in the ground and marks on the trees, an official memo confirming the events written by a high-ranking USAF officer, and a report by local police officers who were called to the scene on two separate occasions. This type of evidence would hold up in a court of law, so how can anyone act like all these military personnel were making this up, or it just so happened it was all in their minds? If there was a murder investigation nobody would be questioning this kind of evidence.
Did an extra-terrestrial craft land in a Suffolk forest during the winter of 1980? The maker of a new film, The Rendlesham UFO Incident, believes so
By Rupert Hawksley5:44PM GMT 16 Feb 2015
Dubbed “Britain’s Roswell”, the Rendlesham Forest incident, which took place over a series of nights in December 1980, continues to fascinate UFO enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists. It is easy to understand why. Consider the following three statements, for example:
1) “This was not some vague ‘lights in the sky’ sighting – the UFO actually landed.” – Nick Pope, a Ministry of Defence employee from 1985 to 2006.
2) “When I arrived [at the scene], it was going in and out through the trees and at one stage it was hovering.” – Sgt. Adrian Bustinza, a security police commander who investigated the incident at the time.
3) “Okay, we’re looking at the thing; we’re probably about two to three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you... And the flash is so bright to the starscope that it almost burns your eye.” – Taken from the Halt tape, recorded on December 27 1980 by United States Air Force lieutenant colonel Charles Halt.
Only last month, a dog walker uploaded fresh footage of unidentified lights in the sky above Rendlesham Forest, while a new film on the subject, produced by long-time Suffolk resident and Rendlesham Forest incident expert Daniel Simpson, has recently been released. There is even an official UFO trail for walkers to follow through Rendlesham Forest. But what actually happened? And, 35 years after the event, are we any closer to unravelling the mystery?
DENY IGNORANCE !!!
originally posted by: Maverick7
1. It's all conflated - there's really no evidence that 'lights in the sky' have anything to do with craft piloted by non-terrestrials. Even the Betty-Barney Hill event may have been a psy-op.
2. It's all 'stories'. Some of the most compelling turn out to be lies (the guy in England with the radiator cover burns on his stomach).
You just can't separate the truly anomalous from hoaxes and lies and delusions.
You will never have a real, scientific study of non-terrestrials because everyone is overly-invested in their mythology.
originally posted by: tanka418
Just a few wee remarks...
1. " Betty-Barney Hill event may have been a psy-op." Not likely. An analysis of Betty's "Star map" reveals an object, a dataset if you will, that is statistically improbable, in the extreme (I can get you actual numbers if you want). Thus the Betty / Barney Hill incident is (probabilistically) real, as differentiated from your psy-op, or a hoax of any kind.
2. Yes, they are all stories...however Once can extract viable data from even a "story", that data can go a very long way to determining the truth and reality of the story.
3. Yes, real scientific data can be found in almost any of the UFO "reports"; it is just a matter of applying One's Self to the extraction, identification of such data.
To think / believe that these stories are valueless is the epitome of ignorance, and laziness. All things contain enough data to "verify" it's own reality...One simply has to apply themselves to the extraction and understanding of said data.
originally posted by: Maverick7
Analyze the Betty-Barney Hill event from the point of view of a psy-op. There are a lot of coincidences. The 'star map' has been roundly debunked and could have been 'given' to Betty by a member of the psy-op group.
originally posted by: BrianDunning
What is gained by not disclosing?
Sorry, but I actually have analyzed the Hill star map...in great detail...
The best we can hope for, is a mass sighting or event that will trigger a FORCED ACKNOWLEDGMENT of alien beings. Something that will literally be undeniable to anyone. This needs to be something extraordinary, such as a daylight sighting with multiple eyewitnesses & videotaped recordings, in a public area. Or a landing of a craft, close enough where we can IDENTIFY that it's a clear DISC with BIZARRE features, clear enough for the naked eye to see, videotaped amongst several eyewitnesses from several vantage points. Big enough to make international news. An event such as this absolutely cannot be hoaxed, no matter what any debunker here tries to say. What comes to mind, personally, is a modern-day, "Zimbabwe School Children Encounter" event for 2016. Only thing that was missing from that event was actual photos or video, otherwise that could've been the smoking gun. We need something similar to that, on TAPE.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418
Sorry, but I actually have analyzed the Hill star map...in great detail...
Then you know that the 2-dimensional drawing of the 3-dimensional map is useless for trying to find a location in space. Betty Hill randomly identified it with Zeta Reticuli because there was a map of that area of the sky published in a newspaper. The match was no better than random chance.
You will be needing to show just how this was random chance...I'm wondering; do you even have a realistic idea of the probability of random? Or how about a working knowledge of probability? Seriously man, but your statement is one of the most ridiculous I've heard this year. Real world probability is: 1 in 1.44e86 making random chance virtually impossible...
Betty didn't identify any of the elements in the map. Also, at the time Betty received the map, Zeta Reticuli wasn't known as a binary star, It wasn't until some years later it was discovered that Z.R. was binary.
The configuration of stars that became the map work just fine as a 2D image since we can use existing star charts and databases (like Hipparcos), and modern 3D modeling tools to construct 2D images of our own for comparision. We can also use the 2D image as a template for some advanced computer vision methods.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418
Wow,1 :1.44e86 is such a specific number I am sure you will have no difficulty showing your calculations.
Betty said that the map showed stars and planets. After years of scrutinizing a set up of beads strung up in an arbitrary 3-d configuration*, Marjory Fish later claimed that the stars matched up with those near Zeta Reticuli... if you moved them around a bit and ignored Betty's claim that they also showed planets.
As you can any other random series of dots.
* Fish did not explain why she chose the particular stars she did out of the Gliese catalogue. When someone else created a map that showed that Epsilon Eridani was a better fit, she rejected it on the grounds that Epsilon Eridani was less suitable for harboring life. In other words, her "research" was completely arbitrary.
Sure; first 17 terms of 117, 000 factorial. 117, 000 is an estimate of the number of records in the Hipparcos table.
There is nothing arbitrary in this. And, it is little more than a template matching exercise...
Well, in reality you can't match "just any random series of dots", it, quite simply, isn't possible. I'd challenge you do match a series of 17 dots with any accepted star table, but I know you will ignore the challenge; mostly because you too know it's not possible.
Actually; Epsilon Eridani isn't a better fit.