Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

a reply to: The GUT

Well stated.

As you know, there are now FOIA'ed CIA and other documents,
extolling how using fake UFO encounters is a good way to cover
covert operations.. multiple manuals on psyops.. and even
an assassination guide for pesky troublemakers.

Also as you know, Nick Redfern, Jack Brewer, a few other good
authors quote these documents.

I concur there is a base phenomenon.. but it's now so covered
up with fraud, it might have a hard time in believing in itself!

Kev

a reply to: The GUT

In passing what part does Frank Camper play in all of this? I keep meaning to pull out the stuff John posted too that I mentioned the other day . I will get there.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

IMO he's just a small malfunctioning cog in a larger apparatus that could provide a piece of this puzzle. Not that he had anything to do with RFI per se.

If LaPlume and some of the other cadre were considered damaged goods worthy only of being militarily useful as test subjects, I can see how some of them might have been steered towards Frank.

I am extremely curious as to how LaPlume and Frank crossed paths. And just as curious as to what John Burroughs' interest in Frank is. As such, I'll be interested to see the info you're referring to when you get around to it. Thanks.

Jack Brewer at UFO Trail--for one--keeps finding evidentiary items that suggest the MK-ULTRA type projects mixed pretty heavily with modern UFO mythology and in looking at it all historically I find myself agreeing.

a reply to: The GUT

LaPlume isn't a witness to the event though, he did witness something perhaps, but it's not necessarily related.

Whilst I think you might be onto something, I find odd GUT is that you are identifying or associating posters as Camper when they clearly aren't. like many on here, I'm intrigued but I can't see the connections. If you know something more, something relevant, then it would be useful to share it here. Or, alternatively not and keep it quiet I guess but I strongly suspect that you are being intentionally distracted

Most recently, there was a poster that was clearly playing everyone. Perhaps he still hangs around here under a different name, but is behaving himself.

With the greatest respect to John, he's speculatively looked at a lot of things over the years, and Frank likely is someone who was connected to LaPlume after the event.

a reply to: The GUT

What I'm about to say, is said with the greatest of respect for Jacques but I think there is little need to link him in any way to anything about the RFI.

Hmmm, the Pentacle Memo. I consider this one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Jacques Vallee isn't quite as forthcoming about his views as many think. He portrayed it as some sort of deliberate fraud and uneasy evidence against the character of Hynek.

The Pentacle Memo isn't proof of anything scary or deceptive more than is necessary in my opinion. It's clearly a Signal To Noise Ratio test. In other words, a necessary part of a scientific investigation.

Yet, Jacques himself proposed to feed back into the control system, upstream so to speak.

For those that don't quite see what this means, on the one hand JV implies that the US were faking UFOS, and on the other hand proposes the exact same sort of test (on a more local scale) to test his own hypothesis.

Seems like mixed messages.

So, when he says that the RFI was a test, it causes me to raise an eyebrow. Is he meaning it was a Pentacle type test, or a test of his control system theory?

In short, he's either so on the money it's a joke, or it's uninformed speculation. In my mind at least there are far more fertile avenues of investigation and at this stage there is little to assign his RFI views any special weight.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Heart troubles seem to be the way it works.

If "it" is even a thing.

Right now we have too many things that are connected:
- Military RFI style incursions
- Roswell style crashes
- Missing 411 abductions
- Cryptids / Bigfoot

Chances are, in my opinion that these aren't all the result of the phenomena. More likely 90% of these things are distractions and magic tricks designed to distract from the one thing it actually really does. Like Derren Brown, maybe?

I'd guess that soon we'll find out that the core TTSA metals are supposedly from Rendlesham and Roswell and these are the two cases upon which the materials analysis relies.

I find it odd, but am looking forward to Jacques new documentary on the materials analysis though!

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I feel like whilst this thread has gone as esoteric and woo as possible, I've gone the other way!

There are so many little facts regarding the RFI that are left neglected but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe this list is something someone here could add to.

- We only know about the RFI because of Steve Roberts, a man who later claimed he was told to leak it to Butler
- Butler was harassed by "alien" David Daniels - an American Billy Miers acolyte

- The two military men who offered LMH and Emenegger an interview with an alien in the 80s were Billy Miers fans.
- David Daniels was supposedly a Priest in the small church known as the Anglo Catholic Church

- David Daniels possessed a book of world locations and symbols that likely became the basis for Penniston's binary codes
- The binary codes are fundamentally flawed for more than this and should be excluded from the core event
- David Daniels was likely looking for the metal samples hidden by Brenda in her house

- These RFI samples are now in the hands of TTSA.
- The analysis by EarthTec is finished by October
- We can expect a presentation on the results of this and the Roswell / Arts parts sample in January
- We can expect a forthcoming film from Garry Nolan and Jacques Vallee about the meta materials

I can offer a few suggestions about wha the above might mean.

- Jacques and Nolan have both "quit" in their own words. JV announced he left ufology a few months ago and Nolan left TTSA in August
- Seeing as both 'dropped out', what are the chances that their materials analysis or conclusions differs significantly from TTSAs?

Why would JV and Nolan create a film about materials analysis just as George Knapp announces TTSA will be holding a press conference on the metal results next year?

My guess is that the Rendlesham materials will form a KEY part of both presentations. Here is why.

You don't create a video series by starting at the beginning and then just see where it goes. You start with the end goal or designation and work your way back.

In other words, you don't film Elizondo and DeLonge catching the Coaster, flying to McCarren and to Texas and hope you will get a decent result. You work backwards. You likely know the results of the materials test and some of it must be interesting, otherwise the whole series of videos fails to achieve anything.

Can we get ANY sense that the RFI / Roswell materials have some sort of previous analysis? Yes. George Knapp has spoken about how Hal Puthoff worked with the materials as part of a classified contract under something like AA TIP. Jacques Vallee worked with Peter Sturrock on his analysis and has done work with Puthoff.

So let me wrap this in a nice conclusion. Both EarthTech (ET) and JV / Nolan / Sturrock have analysed these metals before.

Now one party (JV / Nolan) is making a documentary on the materials. The other party (E.T / TTSA) is holding a press conference next year.

Either they don't agree, or they agree and are trying to beat each other to the punch. Rendlesham and the Arts Parts Roswell piece are what this whole endeavour and perhaps the RfI itself will stand or fall on.

a reply to: ctj83

TextMy guess is that the Rendlesham materials will form a KEY part of both presentations. Here is why. 

A quick comment. I have said a while back the RFI will and is going to play a key role. However the material. What about the story re Dugdale and the material from a stranger in the market? There was some drama re this at the time.
I'm out of time,so have to run.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: The GUT

LaPlume isn't a witness to the event though, he did witness something perhaps, but it's not necessarily related.

Whilst I think you might be onto something, I find odd GUT is that you are identifying or associating posters as Camper when they clearly aren't. like many on here, I'm intrigued but I can't see the connections. If you know something more, something relevant, then it would be useful to share it here. Or, alternatively not and keep it quiet I guess but I strongly suspect that you are being intentionally distracted

Most recently, there was a poster that was clearly playing everyone. Perhaps he still hangs around here under a different name, but is behaving himself.

With the greatest respect to John, he's speculatively looked at a lot of things over the years, and Frank likely is someone who was connected to LaPlume after the event.

What exactly is your point in this little lot? Narrow it down. We know the drama associated with Aro etc. However all of that aside Camper is an interesting one indeed. LaPlume etc etc.
I don't have time to waffle .I suspect The Gut is no fool.

What about John?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mirageman

Rendlesham isn't about a cloud buster. Learn about the uses of non linear optical mediums.

It would be helpful if you can clarify in more detail how that relates to the RFI.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Troll turns up. Tries to insinuate he is Camper.

Hassles GUT and Mirage. GUT seemed to think he was Camper. I don't think he was, with how he was insulting Mirage.

Can you tell me ONE new fact or interesting point that has been added to the RFI thread related to Camper beyond the fact after the RFI Steve went to his camp?

Baa, your posts are almost all questions, or what do people think of x thread or post?

For a long time now, you've not added your own thoughts, synthesis or synopsis or anything, and it's concerning. Have you been warned off by someone (joke)?

I miss your opinions, your thoughts and insights

For a change, why not answer a question yourself and prove me wrong - why do you believe there is anything to do with Camper that connects to what caused the RFI as opposed to after?

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I agree with your prediction. I'm unsure regarding the marketplace sample if they have that.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mirageman

Rendlesham isn't about a cloud buster. Learn about the uses of non linear optical mediums.

It would be helpful if you can clarify in more detail how that relates to the RFI.

If it is about Second Harmonic Generation (within a plasma) and Optical Bistability (Light being controlled by light) then I can help address this, but I will try and address the questions by mirageman first, as it will help with what both mm and I have discussed previously.

a reply to: ctj83

I understand your questioning and with the greatest of respect which I do mean I must apply caution on ATS.
I know it's not the answer you would like but it's the best answer I can give you for now.

The Camper stuff am still looking at CT.

a reply to: AdamE

Thank you Adam. You are still talking to me by the way.

Anyway I know a certain facility near to Rendlesham experiments with non linear optical mediums amongst many other things. But the important thing is slotting into the RFI timeframe.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I understand completely Baa, and I understand what that means. I appreciate the corroboration of what we've both suspected.

a reply to: mirageman

1) Who was responsible for the "The Cloudbuster" set up you have alluded to?

Any potential antenna devices to combat the Soviet threat would fall under the direction of NATO.

In the following link titled 'On Optimum Excitation of Ground Waves' there is a reference to Loran - C antenna...

scholar.colorado.edu...=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1074&context=elmimi

Here is a NATO brief titled Originator Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
7 rue Ancelle, 92200 Neuilly sur Seine, France
6. Title
THE PERFORMANCE OF ANTENNAS IN THEIR OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
www.dtic.mil...

2) What evidence do you have for this being in place near enough to Woodbridge/Bentwaters and Rendlesham Forest in December 1980?

...If the Loran - C system failed due to a catastrophic failure, there needs to be a backup to be able communicate globally.

The following link from 1979 gives a map of coverage.. www.dtic.mil...

Then please refer to pdf pg 17 from the link for a brief overview.

Loran - C was located at Orfordness. Also between 1979 and 1981, the system was being upgraded to a more computer based system and open to smaller craft.

What must also be taken into consideration is the GPS System. This was linked to the Loran system but the GPS was a military asset at the time.

3) If we can we prove the above then is it likely it was used during the specific 3/4 days over Christmas 1980?

You would want to use the time with the least amount of airborne traffic, imo.

originally posted by: wobbs62
This is what I'm thinking could of happened over the few nights in Dec 80,
First of all the lights are some sort of natural or even paranormal phenomena in that area ( around Woodbridge base) and are seen and investigated on the nights of 25 -26 and 26-27.
The night of 27-28 I have two possible events.
1, an accident, i,e, a tactical nuke falls from an f1-11 and drops in Forrest with subsequent uranium leek.
2, CIA with the help from British scientists have a top secret operation running to bring down a Russian satellite and a part or all of if it comes down in the forest.
The intelligence services on hearing about the lights then decide incorporate them into a UFO cover story and put all witnesses under chemical regression with some getting a more detailed story than others, like bustinza and Warren.
would like to know what you all think of my wild theroys.😀

First night could well have been confusion caused by the bright comet passing overhead and a number of other phenomena in the area that confused the first patrol.

I don't think a nuke fell into the forest and leaked radiation. An accident like that would mean the forest would be totally closed off and a 'toxic leak' given as the reason for doing so. It remained open to the public.

As for the attempt to capture a satellite. Who knows? It might not be capturing it physically but maybe more an attempt to interrupt operations in some way? It would certainly be seen as an international incident.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: AdamE

Thank you Adam. You are still talking to me by the way.

Anyway I know a certain facility near to Rendlesham experiments with non linear optical mediums amongst many other things. But the important thing is slotting into the RFI timeframe.

I am always happy to talk with you mirageman

this is why I am going to try and keep this line of enquiry slightly separate for now as It may lead me to woo woo land. Not that I care much, but we are dealing with the physics and can lead me to such a land!!

a reply to: ctj83

I agree.

Here's how I break out "sightings":

95%: misidentification with a prosaic explanation, including schizophrenia & pareidolia.

Here's how i breakdow the 5% remaining:

25% even today, project palladium and other CIA fraud.
25% EM testing of "skull implantation", with pulsed microwaves
25% natural plasmas excited by some EM.
25% "the phenomenon"

So as you can see... the Phenomenon.. although it's had a massive effect
on me personally.. I only give it about a 1.25% of all the incidents.

Now...

I don't *known* exactly what sort of control loop testing Jacques was
alluding to.

but I got the sense that he was alluding to the PEAR testing

en.wikipedia.org...

so I don't think he was referring to simple psychological manipulation testing..

though, quite humorously..

I suspect that things written on ATS, have influenced some of the CIA/Darpa
analyists that run psyops here on ATS (presumably) and has thus
'fed back into the control loop' - thus changing the nature of UFOlogy.

Swords have two edges.. at least most of them. And loops may be
intercepted at multiple points of entry ya know.

Kev