Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: Defragmentor

The exception perhaps is that a foreign element was involved. Could the Soviets get the equipment in place and slip into the UK countryside to wage such a thing?

Perhaps a Soviet submarine sitting off the coast of Suffolk was up to something? Russian trawlers often used to 'phish' around Europe in international waters too. Perhaps the Soviets were trying to detect something the Russians had 'lost, or disrupting something the Brits/Americans were testing. Maybe it all got serious after the Halt night and the risk of a public relations disaster was in danger of becoming an international incident. Ronnie was going to be sworn in as US President in a few weeks. Maybe a silly UFO tale became the compromise story to avoid the real truth ever getting out?

originally posted by: Defragmentor
Also, looking after these events: wouldn't Halt in his position be appraised that it 'was all just a test', and this would all just go to bed with no uproar?

I would also be surprised if they were carrying out a test of Col Conrad and Lt. Col Halt's base and or men without having them in the loop about the test. However some people have claimed that Col Halt knew more than he has admitted to publicly and that he still does. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but I ran across something odd and I don't know if it's been discussed, hard to remember 145 pages worth of discussion. I was listening to this youtube video:

Adrian Bustinza Full Radio interview
www.youtube.com...

Bustinza says he made a 2 to 2.5 page long statement and he tried to get a copy of it but they wouldn't give him one. I couldn't find it and it's not in Ian Ridpath's collection so maybe it never surfaced?

At about 19 and a half minutes he says that Col Halt ordered him and some others (maybe Larry Warren) to confiscate the cameras that the British police had. That strikes me as odd for several reasons:

1. By this time it's the third night so it's well past any "emergency" to go off base in search of a downed aircraft like on the first night when Burroughs and Penniston first ventured off base. So by now any investigations on British soil would seem to be a matter for British police who seem to have every right to be out there, with cameras if they want. The British police have jurisdiction off the base, Halt's team doesn't. So how does Halt have the authority to order the confiscation of the cameras from the British police? It seems to me like he doesn't.

2. Authority issues aside, why would Halt order that? So what if the cops are taking pictures, why should their cameras be confiscated? Unless the people who say that Halt knew more than he admitted to are right and he had some reason we don't know about to order that confiscation. It seems like he's complaining about the lack of investigation by the British on the one hand when he says he never got a reply to his memo (even though he didn't request any reply), and then it seems he's actually interfering with Britain's investigation on the other hand when he orders the confiscation of the cameras their police are using.

Or is Adrian Bustinza just making this up? Seems like an odd thing to fabricate if so. This is one of the more bizarre parts of the story for me.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think Warren has been thoroughly discredited but his description of shadows that lag on the craft that he and bustinza saw has such a ring of truth of it.

Did Warren make it up? Or is it something he took from bustinzas recollections.

I really struggle to understand how two airmen could ah d so acurately understood a process that would have not existed in any public form back then.

We'd call it augmented reality now but back then it had a different name.

- incorrect shadow type on craft (spotlight) due to basic shadow map technology instead of ray tracing
- sluggish shadows due to latency of system to recalculate
- yellow bouncing ball (calibration)

The yellow bouncing ball is what you might now find as part of a home theatre calibration. Or Microsofts Kinect based augemented reality (not hololens).

I don't believe Warren saw anything. I've never heard bustinza say anything to suggest he saw it.

Yet the description all match up and produce a consistent whole.

- Retina damage due to badly handled laser projects . (See Apples recent injuries for examples of this)

-Presence of fog and ionised air to catch the projection
- cheap (In a computing sense) phong shaded objects with shadow maps with ray casting instead of ray tracing
- latency due to augmented reality feedback loop
- yellow bouncing ball to calibrate projection mapping from external camera to create surface shadow mapping on object
- presence of networked computing array and fibre optic network

Warren gives some really odd details that stand out to me due to my day job, that even in the early 80s would not be common knowledge. Most of the graphic techniques wouldn't even be patented until a few years after the event.

It strikes me as really odd that his tale (which I have ZERO belief in) contains such odd and unnecessary details, that for me at least form a really consistent image of a very compute restricted limited augemented or assisted reality projection

a reply to: Arbitrageur

At about 19 and a half minutes he [Bustinza] says that Col Halt ordered him and some others (maybe Larry Warren) to confiscate the cameras that the British police had. That strikes me as odd for several reasons.......

Very odd if it really happened.

Without permission from the UK MoD or 'just cause' (like an enemy/terrorist attack) then Halt and all of his men would be guilty of trespass on that night under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Interfering with the duties of a British Police Officer would be seen as a criminal offence and would not be exempt from the S.O.F.A. Similarly confiscating the property of a private citizen would be deemed an offence. Halt has always denied any British police were involved on the night. Although he also downplayed Adrian Bustinza's part until recently when it suited his story to claim Bustinza never left his side. Georgina Bruni, in her book "You Can't Tell the People" says she did track down one of the British Police officers who was allegedly at the scene. But he refused to comment.

The only explanations I can see are :

* Bustinza is totally confused and this incident never happened at all.

* Bustinza is putting out false stories for reasons unknown.

* The USAF did have UK permission for troops to leave the base and are involved in a cover-up which also involves the British authorities.

* Both the US and UK did not want to draw any more attention to a case that was potentially embarrassing to both governments on a number of levels. The UK possessed its own nuclear deterrent but agreed to accept US Pershing II nuclear missiles into Britain in 1979. This sighting of 'foreign' nukes was unacceptable to many. It saw the re-birth of CND before the missiles arrived and a sizeable anti-US government feeling across Europe. A posse of US troops venturing into Rendlesham Forest was far better left as a UFO story. Something respected media wouldn't touch and so not weaken relations between the US and the Western Europeans.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think Warren has been thoroughly discredited but his description of shadows that lag on the craft that he and bustinza saw has such a ring of truth of it.

Did Warren make it up? Or is it something he took from bustinzas recollections.

I really struggle to understand how two airmen could ah d so acurately understood a process that would have not existed in any public form back then.

We'd call it augmented reality now but back then it had a different name.

- incorrect shadow type on craft (spotlight) due to basic shadow map technology instead of ray tracing
- sluggish shadows due to latency of system to recalculate
- yellow bouncing ball (calibration)

The yellow bouncing ball is what you might now find as part of a home theatre calibration. Or Microsofts Kinect based augemented reality (not hololens).

I don't believe Warren saw anything. I've never heard bustinza say anything to suggest he saw it.

Yet the description all match up and produce a consistent whole.

- Retina damage due to badly handled laser projects . (See Apples recent injuries for examples of this)

-Presence of fog and ionised air to catch the projection
- cheap (In a computing sense) phong shaded objects with shadow maps with ray casting instead of ray tracing
- latency due to augmented reality feedback loop
- yellow bouncing ball to calibrate projection mapping from external camera to create surface shadow mapping on object
- presence of networked computing array and fibre optic network

Warren gives some really odd details that stand out to me due to my day job, that even in the early 80s would not be common knowledge. Most of the graphic techniques wouldn't even be patented until a few years after the event.

It strikes me as really odd that his tale (which I have ZERO belief in) contains such odd and unnecessary details, that for me at least form a really consistent image of a very compute restricted limited augemented or assisted reality projection

This is very informative. Thanks very much for the descriptions ctj83.
What do you think about the following?
en.wikipedia.org...
An interesting early application of AR occurred when Rockwell International created video map overlays of satellite and orbital debris tracks to aid in space observations at Air Force Maui Optical System. In their 1993 paper "Debris Correlation Using the Rockwell WorldView System" the authors describe the use of map overlays applied to video from space surveillance telescopes. The map overlays indicated the trajectories of various objects in geographic coordinates. This allowed telescope operators to identify satellites, and also to identify – and catalog – potentially dangerous space debris


en.wikipedia.org...
Tactical reconnaissance UAV for ground maneuver forces
First flight 1991
The AAI RQ-7 Shadow is an American unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used by the United States Army, Marine Corps, Australian Army and Swedish Army for reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition and battle damage assessment. Launched from a trailer-mounted pneumatic catapult, it is recovered with the aid of arresting gear similar to jets on an aircraft carrier. Its gimbal-mounted, digitally stabilized, liquid nitrogen-cooled electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) camera relays video in real time via a C-band line-of-sight data link to the ground control station (GCS).

The RQ-7 Shadow 200 unmanned aerial vehicle is of a high-wing, constant chord pusher configuration with a twin-tailboom empennage and an inverted v-tail. The aircraft is powered by a 38 bhp (28 kW) AR741-1101 Wankel engine designed and manufactured by UAV Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. Onboard electrical systems are powered by a GEC/Plessey 28 volt, direct current, 2,000 W generator. Currently, the primary payload for the aircraft is the Israeli Aircraft Industries POP300 Plug-in Optical Payload which consists of a forward-looking infrared camera, a daytime TV camera with a selectable near-infrared filter and a laser pointer. The aircraft has fixed tricycle landing gear. Takeoffs are assisted by a trailer-mounted pneumatic launcher which can accelerate the 170 kg (375 pound) aircraft to 70 knots (130 km/h) in 40 feet (12 m). Landings are guided by a Tactical Automatic Landing System, developed by the Sierra Nevada Corporation, which consists of a ground-based micro-millimeter wavelength radar and a transponder carried on the aircraft.
Starting in 2003 the US Army integrated the SmartCam3D augmented reality system into the Shadow Unmanned Aerial System to aid sensor operators using telescopic cameras to locate people or points of interest.

Remember Colares Brazil 1977?
So if the above was in use on first night on a UAV for instance, the third night I still think was something solid, like a sat. these 'UAVs may have been used on halt etc to identify personnel and object?'
Did Adrian see one of these UAV's leave the scene after examination of people and object?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

.....Bustinza says he made a 2 to 2.5 page long statement and he tried to get a copy of it but they wouldn't give him one. I couldn't find it and it's not in Ian Ridpath's collection so maybe it never surfaced?

I'm coming back to this point because I didn't have the information to hand yesterday. Bustinza's statement (if it exists) has never been released into the public domain. The only 'statements' available come from the personnel on duty on the 1st night (25th/26th Dec 1980). Again we have inconsistencies because only 2 appear to have been recorded on official Air Force stationery. It is believed these were statements Colonel Halt requested for his own personal investigations. This to some extent could also explain why some are typed up on 'official AF 1169 forms (Buran and Chandler signed and dated 2nd Jan 1981), Burroughs is handwritten, on lined paper and undated, Cabansag's typed on plain paper and undated and Penniston's was both unsigned and undated on plain paper. The statements of those closer to the 'phenomenon' were on unofficial paper and either unsigned, undated or both.

Make of that what you will.

Adrian Bustinza did give an interview back in 1987 to Larry Fawcett : Link to pdf of interview

Here he was less clear about who had cameras with them and he does not say who confiscated them.

P10

"ADRIAN BUSTINZA - The guys used to have pretty good confidence in me out there, and, I don’t know.
One of the guys told me that he had taken a picture. They confiscated the cameras from some of the personnel there and the film. I can’t remember if it’s Burroughs or the other guy they said, “I switched the film, I got to get my film out of the camera.”

LARRY FAWCETT - That’s what I heard. Larry had told me he thought you did it.

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - No, I was on duty that night, and I didn’t have my camera with me. I wish I could
have done something like that."

In Georgina Bruni's "You Can't Tell the People" published in 2000. Bustinza had been more forthcoming and admitted he was one of the people confiscating cameras although he doesn't go as far as to confirm they were more than British nationals. Halt seemed to be the one taking possession of them.



I also find it interesting that Bustinza, an NCO (ranked Sergeant), says he did not carry a camera when on duty. But Penniston (Staff Sergeant) claims he did.

"I had my notebook and my camera while I was out there because cameras were carried because of terrorism to take pictures of base encroachments. ...

Interview 2002

Again make of it all what you will.

a reply to: steveywonders

Don't know if it's relevant or not but while I've got the two sources to hand

In the Larry Fawcett interview linked earlier here is how Bustinza describes the craft as it leaves.

" LARRY FAWCETT - When it moved, when it took off, did you hear anything or feel anything?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - When it took off, it was, like, hovering. It went up and, like, took off at about a forty-five-degree angle, and if you would have blinked, you would have missed it.

LARRY FAWCETT - That fast?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - That fast. And we got a cold draft of air that lasted about a good ten seconds. You know, like when you get a good blow of dust or wind. No noise though; I do remember that.

LARRY FAWCETT - OK. When it took off, were you able to see the bottom of it?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - No, I can’t say I did.

LARRY FAWCETT - Did the colors change at all?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - The colors were constantly changing while I was there. I remember, it was different colors, and they just, like, go on and off or go to a lower shade. ..........

He was fairly consistent with the description in Bruni's book too. Although he mentions the craft seemed to be distorting. Which is interesting.

a reply to: Shaqmeister

So, Osborn is apparently happy to study and draw inferences from some 'code' of which he has no certainty as to the exact provenance, and then to expect his conclusions to have any meaning at all. This is, of course, all the wrong way around

Yes, that is it in a nutshell...

a reply to: ctj83

.....I don't believe Warren saw anything. I've never heard bustinza say anything to suggest he saw it. Yet the description all match up and produce a consistent whole. - Retina damage due to badly handled laser projects . ....

I don't believe he (Warren) mentions his burned retinas until late in the 1980s maybe even the 1990s. I would also place doubt on the authenticity of AF Form 490 that he published in this book "Left at East Gate" to provide evidence of the eye problems. A much clearer copy was printed in the Deliberate Deception booklets a few years ago.



There are a number of problems. The "Date" and the "Date Issued" look to be in different handwriting. There is a heading "Clinic" and below Tippex appears to have been used. Then "Opti/Ret/Burn/Eye" has been written in the same handwriting as the Date Issued. I would have expected to see the location of the clinic named not the symptoms in that particular part of the form. The appointment was also at Lakenheath which seems odd.

Colonel Halt commented on this :

"The Eye Doctor at Bentwaters at that time was Lester Sharpton. I knew him well as we were both Boy Scout Leaders. If Larry had an eye problem that's who he would have seen. Never heard of the other supposed doctor he claims saw him. I suspect the appointment slip he shows was for his discharge physical and he altered it. If he had cornea burn there should have been follow-up and perhaps a disability rating. "

There are more details and more questionable documents on Sacha's blog : Link
So anything you hear from Warren is probably what he heard from Bustinza.

You (and many others looking in

) may find what MSgt. Ball says in this documentary further fits ....

....a really consistent image of a very compute restricted limited augemented or assisted reality projection

Also pay attention to what is said between the 7:30 - 8:00 mark.

Now back to reality.

originally posted by: steveywonders
This link shows what effect they had in 1959..
www.cia.gov...

There's all kinds of kooky stuff in the CIA and FBI files. Some guy told them he saw aliens and they have a report of that in their files: "This guy told us he saw aliens...." doesn't prove anything, maybe he saw aliens or maybe he drank the wrong moonshine.

That link seems wacky because the story of how Russia shot down Gary Powers is kind of embarrassing for them but it certainly seems to be true. They were supposed to simultaneously launch 3 S-75 missiles which surely would have killed powers but the embarrassing part is only one of the three took off because in the excitement the other two weren't enabled though they made up some less embarrassing excuse.

So only one missile only damaged Power's plane instead of killing him, though they eventually launched more to be sure at least one would hit and ended up killing one of their own pilots with one of the extra launches, more embarrassment. These aren't the kinds of things Russia would like to put into a fake story if you thought the official story was fake but that "secret weapon" claim was real.

Anyway this is the S-75 and it doesn't have the magical properties in that CIA memo and it was perfectly capable of causing the damage sustained to Gary Powers U-2 after they modified it for extended altitude/range:

vpk-news.ru...

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arbitrageur
It strikes me as really odd that his tale (which I have ZERO belief in) contains such odd and unnecessary details, that for me at least form a really consistent image of a very compute restricted limited augemented or assisted reality projection

So you don't believe Warren but you still find some aspects of his story interesting? I'm not sure what to make of that.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Very odd if it really happened.

Yes. I expect different witnesses to describe a UFO a little differently, but things that should be less subjective like whether cameras were confiscated or not shouldn't be surrounded by such controversy. They either were or they weren't and you say Halt denies it. Bustinza is apparently a little inconsistent about who exactly the cameras are confiscated from but he seems to be consistent that they were confiscated. So who to believe? I don't know, except I find it hard to argue with Burroughs when he says he doesn't know what he saw, but too much divergence beyond that.

By the way Burroughs talked about the materials the MOD has yet to declassify in his recent interview, but from his description of those materials I don't really expect they are going to shed a lot of light on the case like I was hoping, that is if Burroughs' description was correct, saying they were mostly something like policy/procedure documents.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: steveywonders
This link shows what effect they had in 1959..
www.cia.gov...

There's all kinds of kooky stuff in the CIA and FBI files. Some guy told them he saw aliens and they have a report of that in their files: "This guy told us he saw aliens...." doesn't prove anything, maybe he saw aliens or maybe he drank the wrong moonshine.

That link seems wacky because the story of how Russia shot down Gary Powers is kind of embarrassing for them but it certainly seems to be true. They were supposed to simultaneously launch 3 S-75 missiles which surely would have killed powers but the embarrassing part is only one of the three took off because in the excitement the other two weren't enabled though they made up some less embarrassing excuse.

So only one missile only damaged Power's plane instead of killing him, though they eventually launched more to be sure at least one would hit and ended up killing one of their own pilots with one of the extra launches, more embarrassment. These aren't the kinds of things Russia would like to put into a fake story if you thought the official story was fake but that "secret weapon" claim was real.

Anyway this is the S-75 and it doesn't have the magical properties in that CIA memo and it was perfectly capable of causing the damage sustained to Gary Powers U-2 after they modified it for extended altitude/range:

vpk-news.ru...

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arbitrageur
It strikes me as really odd that his tale (which I have ZERO belief in) contains such odd and unnecessary details, that for me at least form a really consistent image of a very compute restricted limited augemented or assisted reality projection

So you don't believe Warren but you still find some aspects of his story interesting? I'm not sure what to make of that.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Very odd if it really happened.

Yes. I expect different witnesses to describe a UFO a little differently, but things that should be less subjective like whether cameras were confiscated or not shouldn't be surrounded by such controversy. They either were or they weren't and you say Halt denies it. Bustinza is apparently a little inconsistent about who exactly the cameras are confiscated from but he seems to be consistent that they were confiscated. So who to believe? I don't know, except I find it hard to argue with Burroughs when he says he doesn't know what he saw, but too much divergence beyond that.

By the way Burroughs talked about the materials the MOD has yet to declassify in his recent interview, but from his description of those materials I don't really expect they are going to shed a lot of light on the case like I was hoping, that is if Burroughs' description was correct, saying they were mostly something like policy/procedure documents.

Over the horizon methods were used on aircraft below the atmosphere. . Gary Powers was flying above the atmosphere where this method would not work, which is why the USSR went on experimenting with the pinch.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sorry Arby - something of misunderstanding it seems! Let me clarify.

Warren's account seems to have been borrowed from various sources, including Bustinza. I wonder where he got the details I refer to. They all refer to the cutting edge of 3d graphics in the early eighties. Totally odd to have them included.

I would dismiss it all as a coincidence but I've read enough from Bustinza and Warren to be fairly sure.The strange thing is - I highly doubt that they understand how the pieces connect together.
I strongly suspect that this memory is from something else and has become muddled.

I just have to comment that, on nearing a whopping 3000 posts, the obvious answer to the thread title is... no ;-)

BT

originally posted by: steveywonders
Over the horizon methods were used on aircraft below the atmosphere. . Gary Powers was flying above the atmosphere where this method would not work, which is why the USSR went on experimenting with the pinch.

Now you're just being silly. Gary Powers wasn't flying above the atmosphere, planes like the U-2 can't do that. Even the SR-71 which could go at least 10,000 feet higher than the U-2 still flew in the atmosphere though admittedly the atmosphere is quite thin over 70,000 feet but thin as it is, that's what the SR-71 uses to fly to at least 80,000 feet and it will go even higher in my flight sim (and probably the real one would too), but it stalls pretty easily at higher altitudes. To fly above the atmosphere you need something like a rocket to get above the Karman line at 330,000 feet and neither the U-2 at 70,000 feet nor the SR-71 at 80,000 feet got anywhere near that, though they were some exceptionally high-flying aircraft.

a reply to: ctj83
Thanks for the clarification, now I have a better understanding of your perspective.

This information may help to answer your questions about the photographs, Arby.
The photographs (and maybe even movie pictures?) were already mentioned in 1984.

Raymond W. Boeche interviewed Bustinza in 1984. Unfortunately there are only some snippets of transcripts available. The person that runs the ‘stealthskater’ website published a part of the transcript in a Word document on the case (maybe Jenny Randles has a copy of the full interview):

“There were 2 bobbies there. ... Colonel Halt approached myself and Larry [Warren] … Was it Larry? I'm trying to remember -- I'm not to sure of the other guy's name. [Halt] told us to approach the individuals who at that time were standing in the grass area. … They had some very sophisticated camera equipment, which wasn't unusual for the British. …

[Halt] told us to confiscate the material from the British nationals. Well, we confiscated the film and turned it over to Colonel Halt and [he] put it into a plastic bag. Colonel Halt said it would be dealt with at a higher level of command. He didn't say exactly at what level or anything. I would assume it went to the photography department on base at the time. It could easily have been the intelligence department as well.”

Adrian Bustinza to Raymond W. Boeche, 1984
Source: www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Woodbridge_01.doc page 6

According to the ‘stealthskater’ owner:

Bustinza claims that 2 American law-enforcement officers had also taken photographs. But he cannot recall their names. In support of this claim, Ray Boeche was told by a highly-placed USAF records management official at the Pentagon in March 1985 that photos were taken "and that some of them -- but not all -- were fogged. However, our records do not show the existence of any photographs at all."

In addition, Colonel Halt has confirmed to Ray Boeche that a movie film was taken which was immediately flown to the USAF European Headquarters at Ramstein AFB, West Germany.

Source: www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Woodbridge_01.doc page 6

Raymond W. Boeche published an analysis of the case in the 1986 MUFON symposium proceedings. It can be found earlier in this threat (maybe MM has a way of finding it quickly, someone posted pictures of the pages of the symposium proceedings).

According to Boeche, ‘Airman A’ told him (Airman A probably is Bustinza):

“There were two British policemen, two bobbies, standing off to the side taking photographs of the object. Col Halt came to myself and another airman, and told us to approach the bobbies.
The colonel told us to confiscate the film from these two individuals. We confiscated the film and took it to Col Halt who put it in a plastic bag. He said it would be dealt with by a higher level of command.

There were also two other [USAF] law enforcement officers who had cameras and took photographs. I don’t know where the film went – it might have gone to the photo lab on base, or it might have gone to Intelligence.”

Source: 1986 MUFON symposium proceedings by Raymond W. Boeche, posted earlier in this thread

Where did these photographs (or even movies) go?
The answer is in this 1985 CNN documentary from 19:50 onwards:

a reply to: Guest101
Thanks very much for the info guest101, that's very interesting, sounds like maybe it really happened, though I still don't understand how Halt had the authority to confiscate anything from British nationals. I thought his authority was limited to the base.

I would like to see what was captured on film, if anything, but we may never see it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: steveywonders
Over the horizon methods were used on aircraft below the atmosphere. . Gary Powers was flying above the atmosphere where this method would not work, which is why the USSR went on experimenting with the pinch.

Now you're just being silly. Gary Powers wasn't flying above the atmosphere, planes like the U-2 can't do that. Even the SR-71 which could go at least 10,000 feet higher than the U-2 still flew in the atmosphere though admittedly the atmosphere is quite thin over 70,000 feet but thin as it is, that's what the SR-71 uses to fly to at least 80,000 feet and it will go even higher in my flight sim (and probably the real one would too), but it stalls pretty easily at higher altitudes. To fly above the atmosphere you need something like a rocket to get above the Karman line at 330,000 feet and neither the U-2 at 70,000 feet nor the SR-71 at 80,000 feet got anywhere near that, though they were some exceptionally high-flying aircraft.

a reply to: ctj83
Thanks for the clarification, now I have a better understanding of your perspective.

Butter fingers. i meant to say upper atmosphere. Sorry bout that lol. Amazing how a wrong word can confuse a thread
www.youtube.com...

1980
Margo Cherney FOIA request for complete NASA abstract Report Number: AD-A090426, June 1, 1980. Response from Brooks Air Force Base, Jan.25, 2000: The requested information is fully denied under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)… NASA abstract in part stated,
“A decoy and deception concept presently being considered is to remotely create the perception of noise in the heads of personnel by exposing them to low power, pulsed microwave. When people are illuminated with properly modulated low power microwaves the sensation is reported as a buzzing, clicking, or hissing which seems to originate (regardless of the person’s position in the field) within or just behind the head. The phenomena occurs at average power densities as low as microwatts per square centimeter with carrier frequencies from 0.4 to 3.0 GHz. [within frequency range of 400 MegaHertz (MHz) to 3 GigaHertz] By proper choice of pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created. Before this technique may be extended and used for military applications, an understanding of the basic principles must be developed. Such an understanding is not only required to optimize the use of the concept for camouflage, decoy and deception operations but is required to properly assess safety factors of such microwave exposure.”

we will concentrate on events which have transpired since our last review effort in 1975. Major events which have taken place during that period include: …(5) Unpublished analyses of microwave bioeffects literature which were disseminated to Congress and to other officials arguing the case for remote control of human behavior by radar;

Federal Times, Dec. 13, 1976 Microwave Weapons Study by Soviets Cited: The Defense Intelligence Agency has released a report on heavy Communist research on microwaves, including their use as weapons. Microwaves are used in radar, television and microwave ovens. They can cause disorientation and possibly heart attacks in humans. Another biological effect with possible anti-personnel uses is ‘ microwave hearing.’
“Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities,” the report said. According to the study, Communist work in this area “has great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel.”
No mention was made of the still-unexplained microwave bombardment of the American Embassy in Moscow. The study dealt largely with long-term exposure of days or weeks in industrial situations, which usually produce mild effects. Short exposure to intense radiation can cause heart seizure and a wide range of physical disorders