Thursday, October 15, 2015

Ufology in Decline

Jim Penniston (left) and John
Burroughs.
There are many sides to the Roswell case but what might be most disappointing and more evidence of a decline in UFO research is how contentious the debate has become among those investigating the case. The real problem is not the skeptics or the debunkers, but those who supposedly support the theory it was extraterrestrial in origin. Rather than consolidate the evidence and work for an ultimate solution whatever that solution might be, they argue over trivia, are unwilling to entertain another’s explanation and work to destroy the credibility of the witnesses they don’t like for whatever reason. A united front could provide a path to convincing evidence. Instead, the arguments lead to claims of poor investigation and a presentation of contradictory evidence that inhibits proper research and annoys just about everyone else.

Roswell isn’t the only case that suffers from these multiple viewpoints. The Rendlesham landing of December 1980 has the same problems. There were rumors about the case that began when Art Wallace (a pseudonym for Larry Warren) began to talk about the events. Later others came forward including John Burroughs and Jim Penniston who apparently approached closer to the landed object than anyone else. There was even a letter written by then Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt confirming some sort of unusual event had taken place during those nights in the forest.

Peter Robbins
Eventually Warren would team with Peter Robbins to write Left at East Gate about Warren’s experiences during some of the event. Others would investigate the case, learn the names of other service members who were involved and gather additional evidence. Skeptics provided what they thought of as logical explanations for the events, suggesting that the airmen had been fooled by a number of manmade and natural objects.

Burroughs and Penniston would team with Nick Pope who at one time worked for the British government investigating UFOs and write Encounter in Rendlesham Forest. Although they discuss Warren’s involvement in that book, or maybe alleged involvement, they don’t give it much weight. They do, however, credit him with being among the first if not the first to tell the tale.

So there is a point of contention between the two camps, with one side supporting Warren and suggesting that the other side is, shall we say, less than accurate. The other side points to the problems, briefly, with Warren’s account and his ever changing tale. It does little or nothing to provide a clear picture of what happened. In fact, Robbins was inspired to write a long rebuttal to Pope’s book and post it free online. It can be downloaded here:



I suppose, in fairness, I should mention this is not a new problem. APRO fought with NICAP in the 1950s and 1960s and later with MUFON. Each pushed its own agenda and the truth sometimes got lost in the process. This infighting, which has been lamented in the past, seems to have become worse in the age of the Internet and the truth suffers. Or, in other words, Ufology is in decline.

181 comments:

Wind Swords said...

A very good synopsis of a sad situation indeed. You know my beliefs about Roswell. But there is so much more to Ufology than just Roswell. I believe that ET visitation is a possibility with several cases defying a logical explanation and deserving more research and scientific investigation. Instead we get a Carey/Schmitt "investigation".

"... they... are unwilling to entertain another’s explanation and work to destroy the credibility of the witnesses they don’t like for whatever reason."

I don't know why there is so much protecting of one's "turf" in Ufology. You don't seem to be like that. Maybe it's because you have military pension to fall back on where the others only have Ufology to make a living off of and therefore the need to protect their ideas to remain relevant and get those speaking gigs. Maybe it's just human nature.

Rendlesham is turning into Roswell with authors vs other authors, witnesses vs other witnesses and now authors vs witnesses (An excerpt from a internet podcast: "Join me and guest Peter Robbins as we set the record straight over the recent slanderous allegations made by Charles Halt with regards to Larry Warren and the book he wrote with Peter Robbins, Left at East Gate.").

Also the "expansion" of Rendlesham is similar to Roswell. Roswell added numerous witnesses over the years with tales of alien bodies, multiple crash sites and space craft and famous people involved - Von Braun, La Paz, Truman etc. Rendlesham has not gotten that bad but we have gone from strange lights in the sky and woods and landing traces to a landed ship, missing time, and a download of binary code (love how the code is in English - why couldn't they have just given it to him as English words?). And of course we have an interrogation by some type of security force telling Penniston and Burroughs (or was it just Penniston?) that they didn't see anything. I'm surprised they didn't give them death threats. There was even a podcast I listened to featuring a female assigned to the base right after the incident who had her own tales of unusual things going on and how the area just had some sort of bad Juju to it. What was it Jimmy Durante said? - "Everybody wants to get in the Act".

There are many other good cases worth investigating. Shag Harbor, Cash-Landrum and Socorro. Also the one in Texas you mentioned (Levelland). I hope we can look at those cases. If Ufology is to be turned around it will be by the likes of people like yourself.

Paul Young said...

The frustrating thing with Rendlesham, for me, is that even though Warren blew the whistle within 4 years of the event, no one has seemingly got the bloody time-line straight.
Penniston slated Warren over the years for changing his story...yet Penniston himself has been more than guilty of that too.
In fact, with his latest BS about the ever increasing pages of "binary code", I'd say that he's become as damaging to Rendlesham Incident as Kaufmann has been to Roswell (except for the fact that Jim was undoubtedly there.)
KR mentions that infighting amongst investigators have been as damaging to ufology as the debunkers, but in the case of Rendlesham, the bitchiness is more to do with the infighting of the witnesses themselves.
There's not much that the main players agree on.
Tim Good suggests a lot of this might be to do with a particularly harrowing, and extended, debrief they were all put through. (probably the only thing they ALL agree on is that the debrief experience was shattering)
More good work is being done with the case however. Gary Heseltine is resolving to iron out the timeline once and for all. It was severely hampered from the very beginning by Halt, incredibly, getting the date wrong when he first wrote out his memo. Then again, Halt was,at first, completely unaware of the "1st night" incident.
One thing you can't accuse the Rendlesham witnesses of doing though, is getting their heads together (getting their story straight) ala Dennis and Kaufmann seemingly did with Roswell.

cda said...

Rendlesham is the British Roswell. It is in about the same state now as Roswell was when the first book on the latter appeared, THE ROSWELL INCIDENT (Berlitz & Moore). Given time, yes it will match Roswell and maybe even improve on it. There will likely be bodies, death threats, literally tons of hidden top secret documents (Peter Robbins has already told us this at a 1997 conference) and goodness knows what else.

I look forward to the day when we get the Rendlesham 'slide show', in either Mexico City or Buenos Aires, or possibly somewhere else. But this time it will be the real thing.

Which all goes to show one thing: Anything you guys in the USA can do, we in the UK can also do, and better too. Perhaps.

starman said...

Rendlesham is totally unlike Roswell. It wasn't a crash retrieval case so how can anyone claim to have seen bodies? It may be true, though, that these cases have gotten inordinate attention while others, spectacular and more recent, have "flown under the radar." See my latest blog post on one such case. :)

TheDimov said...

its true what you say Kevin, I think its crazy how everyone is at each other's throats, and the Rendlesham case is a great example. John and Jim are the two foremost witnesses, and they have a go at Larry Warren and have done since the beginning yet they themselves have testimonies that differ quite a lot. They didn't like especially that Warren talked about aliens - they hated that - yet when pressed John and Jim both don't deny that it could be extra-terrestrial in origin, and so if their accounts differ so much why cant Larry's as well? Perhaps it simply is the case that when observed by different parties UFO's look different to different people. It is that way with ghosts for instance, some will say they saw an old man, another will swear it was a woman and another will say they saw nothing at all!

So I agree totally, ego's need to be put aside and people need to put the priority upfront of wanting to get to the bottom of this whole ET mystery. But with human ego involved, and things like money, and righteousness, and all other things along, level-headedness looks to be the least likely thing we will see any time soon in ufology.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I think with Rendelsham, moreso than with Roswell, we need to factor in the paranoia generated in the witnesses by what they saw, what the consequences could be for them of sharing it publicly, and whatever mind-scrambling devices were applied to them in their 'debriefings'. We know, Halt admits knowing, that the key witnesses were drugged with mind-altering substances during these debriefings. Most others on the base who witnessed some of the events over the three nights in December 1980 still decline to come forward; at least one of them broke down and was sent home.

One harder piece of evidence concerns the testimony of several individuals concerning the penetration of the nuclear weapons storage area with laser=like beams from at least one ufo hovering over that site and visible to two or more individuals in the adjacent guard tower. A number of witnesses testify to two nukes being transported off the base a week or two following these events by a very large US air force cargo plane. Robert Hastings has written about information he received that these nukes were taken to Kirtland AFB. I'll find and link Hastings's report.

Thiago Luiz Ticchetti said...

Perfect position Kevin!

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Here is the link to Robert Hastings's paper concerning the penetration of the nuclear weapons storage area at Rendelsham by beams issuing from a ufo observed from the security tower and the subsequent removal of two nukes by the US Air Force:

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/beams-of-light

Brian Bell said...

Earlier on another post I mentioned the use of government contractors for means to shuffle and hide secret information normally obtained legally through the FOIA.

Halt was quoted in the July 15, 2015 Huffington Post article about Rendelsham:

"There is a contract civilian agency, that is fed information, that is controlling everything. It's made up of either former military, high-level government agencies or high-ranking, very knowledgeable scientists. I can almost guarantee you. That's the way we do it. And disinformation is the biggest thing," Halt told HuffPost on Friday.

So you see even he believes what I suggested is currently happening.

Overall Rendelsham is another odd incident. I'm not certain why it's referred to as the UK's Roswell since almost nothing about it is Roswell-like as the case goes (it didn't crash).

You can read the article here:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55a6c05ae4b04740a3dede3e


Jeanne Ruppert said...

BB wrote:

"Halt was quoted in the July 15, 2015 Huffington Post article about Rendelsham:

'There is a contract civilian agency, that is fed information, that is controlling everything. It's made up of either former military, high-level government agencies or high-ranking, very knowledgeable scientists. I can almost guarantee you. That's the way we do it. And disinformation is the biggest thing,' Halt told HuffPost on Friday."

Yes, this clever tactic is employed on both sides of the pond. Nick Pope discussed it in a lengthy blog early this year with reference to John Burroughs's and Jim Peniston's difficulties in obtaining their medical records relative to exposure to radiation at Bentwaters in December 1980. In the same blog, as I recall, he referred to some critical information still held back by the MOD and in a posture to be accessible through FOIA, which documents are to be released sometime in 2016, late in the year as I recall.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Here is a link to the Nick Pope blog I mentioned. It's not the longer detailed blog I was remembering, which was actually written by John Burroughs. I will seek and post a link to it.

http://ufodigest.com/article/ufos-smoking-1101

I mistated the date of the promised release of those last 18 ufo files from MOD; apparently it's to be this year.

John's Space said...

Saying the Rendlesham Forest is the British Roswell is just to say that it is the most famous and important single British incident as Roswell is the US. It isn't a case that has the potential (if real) and if the respective governments were cooperative could establish the reality of extraterrestrial visitors.

However, it is a very important case in that it does reveal what the "inside" view of the UFOs actual is. Consider that the vice-commander of a nuclear strike unit is a key witness to close encounter with a UFO. Given the human reliability issues at stake here it is notable that he wasn't removed from his job after this. In fact he was later promoted to full colonel. So they didn't think his report was either crazy or incompetent. It shows me that they took it as real and true. But, they didn't want any public acknowledgement of that. Given the after writing his report he remained silent while still in uniform they were satisfied that the issue was effectively contained.

Anthony Mugan said...

Kevin
I dip in occasionally and will comment only rarely but just to say I agree with your concern at the state of ufology.
To some extent it has always been thus ( contactees and new age 'space brothers' etc), but you are right that the internet has exacerbated the problem as it removes any filters on publication of nonsense.

There have been examples of organisations making major contributions ( in the early days) and attempts to produce groups that maintain higher standards. By and large though it appears to me that progress has largely been the result of quality work by individuals or very small groups.

Each researcher ends up having to personally judge the quality of prior work as there is no coherent peer review process to filter out a secure body of knowledge.

Progress will be very slow and largely depend on individual efforts in specific areas.

In this context I view the bulk of the activity in ufology as a branch of the entertainment industry, satisfying a human need for instant gratification with frequent sensationalist claims that tendancy to escalate claims over time.

There are a few lines of enquiry that offer at least the potential for progress, including some areas of mainstream research that would have significant implications if the data goes certain ways, and of course my old favourite the Ramey memo, but real progress occurs only rarely.

In terms of Rendlesham...well it worries me but no firm conclusions at this time. I just note that the more credible explanations for the initial sightings hang together quite well and we have a worrying escalation of claims over time from some witnesses. There are a few things that prevent me from concluding that this was initially a set of misidentifications that have turned into something more like a hoax, and I hope my concerns prove to be unfounded as the consequences would be horrific, but we shall have to watch how that one goes.

Thanks for the interesting articles

John Steiger said...

I beg to differ ... In fact, I must insist:

While Messrs. Lance, cda, and the indefatigable Brian Bell comprise a worthy opposition, even in combination they are no match for the rigors I have had to endure at the incessant critique of my "beloved" mother-in-law ...

So, in the words and spirit of our most recent former President: "BRING IT ON !!!"

P.S. To Dr. Randle -- Before I'm finished, I intend to vindicate your Great and Extensive efforts on behalf of Roswell in particular and for UFOlogy overall.

Thank you so much!

John's Space said...

That's a bold claim Mr. Steiger!

Brian Bell said...

I have to echo Mugan's concerns regarding Rendelsham when he states the initial reports hang together but blossom into questionable claims later.

If anything, we have confirmation (once again) that UFO's (whatever they are) occasionally have interest in commercial and military nuclear facilities. What that means no one knows.

The claims of the Rendelsham craft shooting beams into weapons storage areas as well as telegraphing binary code identifying the craft as a probe from the future are examples of the post incident expansion of the story line.

Why someone would insist this craft, if it was that at all, is proof of alien life or visitors from our own future is baffling.

If it was a craft of some kind, my first stop on the road to inquiry would be to initially assume the object was a classic smaller version of the many triangular objects seen before and after, some of which demonstrate at least circumstantial evidence they are military surveillance drones of some sort.

John's Space said...

Why someone would insist this craft, if it was that at all, is proof of alien life or visitors from our own future is baffling.

Basically, the reason is that the crafts have properties that no known human technology can duplicate. In fact they seem to violate the known laws of physics. The implies a knowledge of basic science that is beyond us.

The claims of the Rendelsham craft shooting beams into weapons storage areas as well as telegraphing binary code identifying the craft as a probe from the future are examples of the post incident expansion of the story line.

You are probably correct about this. It does seem that the story line about the craft from the future does seem a bit out there. It certainly evolved. I wouldn't be too surprised about the beams. Triangular UFOs are known for these beams they put down. It seem to me that they are not just light beams but some other entity and the light is a side effect. This is evident in the Belgian UFO flap of the early 1990 and others.

Wind Swords said...

Brian Bell said:

"I have to echo Mugan's concerns regarding Rendlesham when he states the initial reports hang together but blossom into questionable claims later."

That is one reason why I concentrated on the 1st two days or so of Roswell. The beginning always seems to be more accurate than what happens later.

Anthony Mugan mentioned a tendency for the escalation of claims in these kinds of cases. That is what I was referring to when I talked about the "expansion" of Roswell or Rendlesham.

James Kelly said...

Jeanne Rupert said:

"One harder piece of evidence concerns the testimony of several individuals concerning the penetration of the nuclear weapons storage area with laser=like beams from at least one ufo hovering over that site and visible to two or more individuals in the adjacent guard tower. A number of witnesses testify to two nukes being transported off the base a week or two following these events by a very large US air force cargo plane. Robert Hastings has written about information he received that these nukes were taken to Kirtland AFB. I'll find and link Hastings's report."

Hi Jeanne,

My name is Jim Kelly. I am a former MUFON Maricopa County State Section Director in the Phoenix, AZ area. Kevin might/ or might not remember me because I asked him to lecture at our Phoenix chapter several years ago which he did to a packed house.

I met John Burroughs in the mid 1980's when we worked together as proprietary security officers for American Express.He told me the entire story of his Rendlesham
experience and he did mention that several USAF Security Police officers including himself had witnessed UFO activity in the weapons storage area. But then he would stop short and refused to speak more of the incident. I would press him for more information but he told me he could not say anything else because he was afraid the government might come after him about talking about the nuclear weapons storage area.

It was not until many years later when he and I re-connected that he finally told me the details about the UFO incident after the History Channel special where he described the ufo shooting some type of beam into the nuclear storage bunker and later on how the nuclear weapons were taken out of that bunker.

This was not some made up story that was added on years later. I know how this incident affected his emotional stability, but it pretty much became an obsession with him to let his fear go about the government coming after him and getting the truth out.

The other factor was he was just plain paranoid about certain UFO investigators interviewing him. He did not trust many people to get his story out for years after his first televison interview.

So, I am going on record now about him. You can verify my name with him if you please.

I also was in England stationed at Lakenheath England as a USAF security police specialist but did not meet John until we were both out of the Air Force.

I quit MUFON a long time ago due to the direction of where the organizaton was headed. It was because of John Burroughs that I became involved in MUFON initially and I was an investigator in training for the Phoenix Chapter during the "Phoenix Lights" fiasco.

Paul Young said...

The "tendency for the escalation" of the Rendlesham case could be in no small part due to the fact that when Warren blew the whistle, most of the main players where still in service with the USAF.
Halt has stated on numerous occasion that he realised immediately this was potentially damaging to his career and that he deliberately watered down his "Unexplained Lights" memo for fear that his superiors would think he had gone mad.
Only after Halt had retired from service did he go into {much} further detail on his own experience and has never deviated...(unlike Pennistone, who seemingly celebrates each significant anniversary of the event with a higher level of sheer bollocks.)

One thing is certain is that the British MOD certainly learned invaluable lessons from the way the US govt/military has tried (still) to cover-up Roswell. Instead of giving their citizens hilarious explanations like weather balloons and crash dummies...we've been given no explanation at all for Rendlesham. Basically we were told that it was "...of no defence significance, now shut-up and pay your taxes. Case closed!"

Stefan Fasan said...

It's actually funny that so few people realize that the Warren event was on a different night. Penniston/burroughs was a different sighting. Much confusion even between witnesses. Why Penniston came up with this binary code nonsense I don#t know for sure, but I did an extensive analyses of it and nothing can be learned from that. It's just nonsense.

The decline of UFology is the complete unwillingness to produce physical evidence, it's the chase for imaginary aliens at area51 or trying to get any useful information out of cases that are more than sixty years old.

I don#t really see Rendlesham as a good example for this process - Warren / Robbins have provided a TON of material like documents, photograps, scanned letters, together with a complete timeline, and soil samples. At least they were trying. But hey, it's much easier to fantasize about little grey men in Dulce Mesa or Avian aliens guarding the asteroid belt from the evil lord Xenu or whatever.

Daniel Transit said...

Ufology in Decline???

I once had a page on my website under the title World-UFO-Links. When last updated in January 2004, it contained 375+ UFO-related links from 61 countries.

If you look at the flag counter overview for this Blog, it states:

208 different countries have visited this site

And yet, this post only refers to two events in two countries!

How can perceived problems with research in two countries about 2 cases in any way be taken as meaningful evidence of 'Ufology in decline'?

[Check out recent issues of the British magazine Flying Saucer Review, if you want to see Ufology in ascent]

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Good comment, Daniel Transit.

KRandle said...

Daniel Transit -

Just two examples... I could have pointed to Jaime Mausson in Mexico as another example... or to the many hoax videos on YouTube or to the quality of the cases reported and the quality to the investigations which seem to embrace everything no matter how outrageous the claims... the introduction of crop circles and the linking of Bigfoot into UFOs. I just picked two examples which pointed to some of the problems with Ufology. The number of hits from around the world, the number of sightings is not the only factor here. And I was talking about the attacks launched on those who don't happen to hold the same beliefs as many others. Embrace all of Ufology no matter how outlandish and you are in... suggest a solution, no matter how rational and the attacks begin. This is way Ufology is in decline.

cda said...

There was a time when many ufologists, mainly those like Keyhoe and his gang at NICAP, said that ufology was being killed off by the contactees and the spiritualists. So it is nothing new to claim ufology is in decline. Everyone likes to think their own particular brand of ufology is superior (and more meaningful) to the other brands.

Keyhoe and NICAP believed themselves to be of the more 'acceptable' kind as opposed to the so-called airy-fairy kind.

There are plenty today who take a similar view. No, ufology is not dying now any more than in the past. It is just that its scope has broadened, much to the dismay of the nuts-and-bolts ETHers. Even abductions were once an unheard-of phenomenon. Then they rose quickly. They may be in decline now, but they'll revive one day, I expect.

KRandle said...

Yes, yes, CDA -

Keyhoe and NICAP had trouble with contactees, but they were clearly a fringe and Keyhoe's concern might have been misplaced. My concern is that there are so many tales out there from underground bases at Dulce and the fellow who proved it by showing a huge scar on his chest, to the animal mutilations which have a terrestrial explanation that many just won't believe, to the crop circles are some sort of communication which makes my ask, "Why not use the radio?" to the dozens and dozens of faked videos on Youtube and everything else... not to mention the real lack of investigation in many cases.

So there has always been a problem but we did have robust sightings and we did have some very good investigation but today, that seems to be lacking... not to mention everyone with his or her own agenda to the constant sniping by those who don't share the points of view of others.

Brian Bell said...

Having read every book on UFO's from 1973 to 1989 (and believing most of what they claimed), I quickly came to realize the entire endeavor was going to hell in a hand basket.

I attended only two MUFON meetings anticipating them a conduit for serious discussion. Alas I was horribly mistaken.

Confronted with the reality my chapter gatherings were hijacked by contactees, I saw the end drawing near.

The fringe droned incessantly about radiant beings from outerspace who were preparing mankind for a coming transformation of the collective mind.

In my only sessions of that beleaguered enterprise, it became painfully clear I would never be "one with the cosmos".

The last bastion against the lunatic hoard folded when fraudulent research and deceitful testimony laid bare that infamous case we call "Roswell".

The cornerstone had collapsed. The darkness had fallen.

Nearly two and a half decades later UFO's are nothing more than a venue for humorous entertainment. Their leaders mere perpetrators of a hoax played upon the nigh-eve and the gullible.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

James Kelly, thanks for sharing the information you received from John Burroughs. He has a facebook page you might want to know about if you want to keep up with Rendelsham developments, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/rendlesham/

Here are a few comments copied from it:

“The 'Rendlesham Forest incident', which is alleged to have taken place near RAF Woodbridge, Suffolk, in 1980, saw US Airman First Class John Burroughs, who was stationed there, exposed to radiation after a mystery "UFO visitation".

He has since won damages from the American military, but still wants answers about what happened and hopes they will be in the new files.

Pat Frascogna, his lawyer, said: "We know there is information contained in these MoD files about the Rendlesham Forest incident because the MoD clearly indicated so in responding to a Freedom of Information request by John Burroughs last year."

“Jim Penniston on Project Condign: In Chapter 19 page 250 Penniston states that he never understood why General Williams never asked any questions after we briefed him about the incident. "Stating little did I know that thirty-two years later I would learn why he didn't. It’s because of the declassified document explaining the phenomenon and he was aware of at the time of it." Documents which stated all Wing Commanders were briefed on this Phenomenon and what he was supposed to do if it came up under his watch.”

So far as I've heard, the MoD is not going to release the Condign documents this year.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Adding to James Kelly -- I checked the link I gave you to be sure it was correct and noted that the page is a closed forum. Knowing John Burroughs as you do, you should have no problem gaining access if you want to follow events there.

Brian Bell said...

But let's not jump to conclusions.

If there are briefing documents pertaining to how Wing Commanders are supposed to respond to this or any other incident at their base, this does not prove ET exists.

Those documents may simply be explanations on how commanders should respond to suspicious activity in and around their base when concerned about espionage or other intrusions from very earthly enemies.

So far there is no proof this event was a time machine or alien visitor. If anything I think it more likely (if it did happen as described) the observed was a surveillance device of military origin.

cda said...

Jeanne:

You stated that Jim Penniston won damages from the US military.

Were these damages due to the radiation he was exposed to, and if so, was this radiation in any connected with the UFO incident?

If this radiation (or whatever it was) was due to something else, have you any details on what it was, and the amount of damages he got?

As far as I know Dave Clarke received the entire declassified Condign Report (formerly top secret). Are you saying there is more to come, or are you just hoping?

cda said...

Jeanne:

Sorry I meant John Burroughs. But he and Penniston are, or were, involved together in the case.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

CDA and BB, this text by John Burroughs will answer some of your questions. It was published on his facebook page earlier this year and I asked him for, and received, permission to repost it in a discussion of the Rendelsham event in the Paracast forum:

"Burroughs: ". . . Rendlesham Forest A FOI request in 2008 revealed that documents on the 1980 sightings by military personnel at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, were held on 109 separate files (DEFE 24/2450/1, p. 79) and MoD had received numerous requests for information on the incident that had become known as "Britain's Roswell.‟ But, responding to an inquiry from the USA in 2008 MoD said: "The incident was over a quarter of a century ago and despite the assertions of many people who chose to believe in the existence of UFOs or extra terrestrials, the MoD had little interest in the matter at the time and even less interest now. Put simply, we consider the incident closed" (DEFE 24/2628/1, p144).

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ufo-highlights-guide-2013.pdf

So Clarke was able to pick out information on key cases such as Rendlesham, offering for public understanding that the MOD thought the issue was settled, but did not include the part where they said observers experienced radiation and other side effects at Rendlesham.

The passage in Volume 2 of Tech/Memo 55/2/00 caught my eye because I was out there that night.
And I have specific medical symptoms that are considered by some very knowledgable people to be a fingerprint of a specific kind of radiation.

To get why that is important, consider this:

There are two possible propulsion systems which can account for the kinds of performance observed by the UAP and which could generate radiation. Both need a lot of power, requiring the mastery of solid-state ZPE energy production, that would account for the performance described in the MOD papers.

One of them is electro-gravitic in nature. The other is the Alcubierre field effect.

Think of the first one as impulse power. Good for floating around the sky in impossible fashion.
Think of the second as warp drive. Good for interstellar travel.

And now consider this:

They emit different types and spectra of radiation. The MOD papers spend a lot of time talking about EM radiation at frequencies down at the level of brainwaves, 1-12 Htz. Neither of which is exactly relevant to propulsion and control.

My medical symptoms are known to come from a frequency range way above that and that range matches the by-product of a theoretical Alcubierre style drive.

http://io9.com/5889628/warp-drives-may-come-with-a-killer-downside

I am not saying I know what the phenomenon was that we encountered.
Only that it was.

I have to consider something that would eventually require me to have open-heart surgery to replace a badly shredded anterior mitral valve to be significant, defence or otherwise.

It does not matter where the hell it came from, whether it's a black budget or another civilization, if the phenomenon leaves that kind of evidence behind it and performs in that manner, it is of considerable defence interest. And if it is indeed the result of a black budget program, then one of the interests would be to conceal that fact. Exactly what the phenomenon was is a discussion for much later consideration.

Finally I have to consider this: maybe Dr. Clarke simply did not see that passage. Or see it as meaningful. Dr. Clarke's obtained his PhD. in Folklore from the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition, University of Sheffield, in 1999. Perhaps, with extensive training in the field of folklore as a lens for his perception, everything is but an urban myth."

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeanne Ruppert said...

The following is by Nick Pope earlier this year, not the whole of what he wrote but an extract (which is also the case with the Burroughs quotation above):

Pope: ". . .Notwithstanding the above, the persistence of John Burroughs has forced the MoD to admit that the June 2013 file release was not, as they had claimed at the time, the last of the UFO files. A further 18 were located, including Defence Intelligence Staff policy files, and files from the Directorate of Air Defence – a headquarters policy division staffed by radar experts. So when, sometime around September 2015, these additional 18 UFO files are released, it would be as well to remember why they were made public. It wasn’t due to the media, or the UFO community, but was thanks to a tenacious retired military cop who got caught up in the most significant UFO event since Roswell, and simply wanted some answers. . . .

Finally, while the UFO community may not yet have a ‘spaceship in a hangar’ smoking gun, let’s take a last look at that bombshell quote from Project Condign’s final report: “Several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation” – remember that this is a quote from a Secret UK Eyes Only intelligence study on a phenomenon that the MoD told the UK Parliament, the media and the public was of “no defence significance”. Ironically, the release of Project Condign’s final report, in and of itself, nails the lie that UFOs are of “no defence significance”. Why? Because at the time the document was written, “Secret” was defined as information the compromise of which would, for example, “raise international tension”, “damage seriously relations with friendly governments”, “threaten life directly”, or “cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of UK or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations”. Self-evidently it’s nonsense to suggest that these sorts of definitions could ever apply to a topic of “no defence significance”. If UFOs were genuinely of “no defence significance”, the MoD wouldn’t have spent over 50 years researching and investigating the phenomenon, wouldn’t have commissioned a highly-classified intelligence study on the subject, and wouldn’t have stamped the study’s final report “Secret UK Eyes Only”.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

You also need to know that both Burroughs and Penniston have suffered negative health effects in the decades since the Rendelsham event, Burroughs's problem being more grave. Over the last several years both men have appealed again and again to both the MoD and the US military and government for release of their medical records from their years at Bentwaters. Burroughs received aid and support from an attorney and from Sen. John McCain in obtaining the release of his records to his medical advisors [note: I have not seen any indication that these records were released publicly, and I doubt that they would be even under normal circumstances]. The US military or perhaps the Veterans Administration then paid the costs of his open-heart surgery.

The full Condign documentation referred to by both of them was to be released this year in mid-September but that has not happened. I don't know if another future date has been set for this release. CDA, I take it that you live in England and therefore should be in a better position to locate further information about these documents and the official resistance to their release.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

BB wrote:

Brian Bell said...

"But let's not jump to conclusions.

If there are briefing documents pertaining to how Wing Commanders are supposed to respond to this or any other incident at their base, this does not prove ET exists.

Those documents may simply be explanations on how commanders should respond to suspicious activity in and around their base when concerned about espionage or other intrusions from very earthly enemies.

So far there is no proof this event was a time machine or alien visitor. If anything I think it more likely (if it did happen as described) the observed was a surveillance device of military origin."

No one is saying that the documents "prove ET exists." The claim is that the documents contain significant information and also directives to military commanders concerning radiation emitted by UFOs/UAP or by devices used by terrestrial military intelligence agencies ostensibly for purposes of testing readiness at military bases or for mind-control experimentation. The latter options have been proposed by some people to account for what happened at Rendelsham as well as at numerous other Air Force bases and SAC missile sites over the last half-century. Those events can hardly be described as 'surveillance'. It's never made sense to me that such 'friendly' intrusions should need to be made again and again and again to learn how the soldiers on the ground react to them. The soldiers are at considerable risk (immediate and longrange) if these intrusions are carried out by their own military leadership for some incalculable reason. On the other hand if these intrusions originate from off-planet species, all of us need to know it. You pays your money and you takes your choice which explanation you feel more comfortable with.

Brian Bell said...

@ Jeanne

Please clarify, were you quoting a statement or saying that you personally were out there during the Rendelsham incident? Or in the area?

Also I agree on the radiation effects and the tech behind it.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

BB, no I wasn't there. What statement are you referring to? Almost everything I've posted today consists of lengthy quotations from texts written by John Burroughs and Nick Pope, and a brief quotation from John Penniston posted at John Burrough's FB page. There's more from the texts I cited by both Burroughs and Pope that I could post here at length if Kevin is agreeable to that. Alternatively, you can read those texts and a discussion of alternative theories concerning the Rendelsham events over three days at this Paracast forum link:

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/larry-warren-on-dmr-dec-15th.15687/

John's Space said...

On the basic subject of Ufology in decline, a case in point is what is going on with MUFON? In particular their Hangar 1 program. While some of the shows are rather good and significant number are completely absurd.

For example the show in which Richard Nixon takes the actor Jackie Gleason to an Air Force base at night (with Nixon driving the car) to see alien bodies and crash debris. Eisenhower meeting with aliens at Edwards AFB to make a treaty. A lot of other crazy things as well.

MUFON is support to be a serious UFO investigation group and it is standing behind completely laughable things like the above. Can you just imagine what would happen if there really was a facility like that on a military base? A man drives up to the gate with a passenger around midnight claiming to be the president wanting access to what would be the most secret facility on the base. He is just waved forward? Really?

This is a decline in Ufology.

Brian Bell said...

Jeanne -

Thank you for the clarification. Others have stated up to 85 men were aware and present during the incident. Just clarifying.

Regarding the radiation effects, I think that is a reasonable route to investigate. Although it may be difficult in some ways to seperate any exposure occurring from simply being present on a nuclear site.

John's Space said...

Rendelsham seems to me to be a much more clear cut case than Roswell. Unless you assume a conspiracy of several USAF personnel including the vice-commander of the unit stationed there and that this was conduced over decades then something real happened. The object left physical traces and effects. It also is clearly not of the technology of the Earth civilization at that time (or now).

Roswell many or may not have been an ET event but in many ways the behavior of the Air Force in the years after seem to me to be at variance with a confirmed UFO crash. Why start Project Sign if they new for sure that ETs were for real and they had the crash debris and bodies to prove it. Given the choice of complete secrecy wouldn't something like Grudge or post-Ruppelt Blue Book be a more reasonable USAF stance? Of course we could assume that Gen. Twining wasn't cleared but that seems a little unlikely. If Twining knew what was be studied on his base at the moment he signed the memo requesting Sign this leaves us with the situation where the Air Force has a team working to uncover what they have just covered up.

It does make more sense that Roswell was just an absurd misidentification. I tend to think that the government isn't as much in the know about UFOs as a lot of people think. They in some compartments know more than the public such as data from tracking by radar and pursuits by aircraft, etc. But, it is very likely that even they have limited hard evidence. This may be the real TOP SECRET of UFOs: The government doesn't have handle on the situation either. Admitting that plus the facts that show the phenomena is real can't be tolerated.

Brian Bell said...

@ John -

I believe some of the physical evidence at Rendelsham (the landing marks) has been explained as prosaic (animals etc.).

On the Project Sign question, I have to believe this is a strong possibility. That being the USAAF (and military in general) has no clue what they are dealing with both then or now.

As I've said, the evidence at Roswell leans toward a prosaic explanation more than anything else.

In other post 1947 incidents that remain totally baffeling, there really is no way to prove what is flying around out there.

Without anyway to explain the phenomenon, people have jumped to the conclusion it must be ET (what else?) because the've no evidence for explanation.

Hundreds of years ago people also attributed the unexplainable as the antics of forrest fairies, nomes, and sprites. People in our modern, technical-scientific world see them as "aliens."

Why haven't they told us?

Well if the USAF (or any nation's military) can't explain the phenomenon, but have attempted for decades to research it publicly and covertly, they would indeed have something to hide - the fact they can't explain it.

If true, then why would they confirm this to the public at large or even all parts of the military?

"Citizens, a real aerial phenomenon exists that we simply can't explain. It invades our airspace at will. It seems to have intelligence but we can't be certain. These objects operate covertly and completely evade us. We can't shoot them down and we can't detect them easily. They threaten commercial and military aircraft and may command our oceans. They appear out of nowhere and return to the same. They defy all known science.

And to our military; these objects have penetrated our defenses, have infiltrated nuclear weapons facilities, and have even caused our aircraft to crash. They can appear anytime and anywhere during peace or wartime. We can't control them.

We say this because we just thought you should know. We have no way of dealing with this phenomenon and we can't control it. Thank you and have a nice day."

cda said...

This matter of the military holding, and hiding, the hard evidence reminds me of something in one of Coral Lorenzen's books of long ago. I think it was "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax" (1962). In it is some correspondence between APRO and Lt Col Tacker of the USAF, concerning the so-called Ubatuba fragments picked up by someone on a beach in Brazil.

The point is that Tacker wanted APRO to hand over the fragments, e.g. the hardware, so that the USAF labs could analyse it, but Coral Lorenzen was reluctant to do so. Thus the situation above was in effect reversed. Instead of the military hiding the hard evidence frm the public, it was APRO hiding it from the military!

Eventually the fragments were analysed by government labs, but that is another story (see Condon Report).

Who is to say what hard evidence is still in the hands of civilians or civilian UFO groups? Instead it is they who blame the military or the governments for hiding the hardware. Strange.

John's Space said...

Brian,

"Citizens, a real aerial phenomenon exists that we simply can't explain. It invades our airspace at will. It seems to have intelligence but we can't be certain. These objects operate covertly and completely evade us. We can't shoot them down and we can't detect them easily. They threaten commercial and military aircraft and may command our oceans. They appear out of nowhere and return to the same. They defy all known science.

And to our military; these objects have penetrated our defenses, have infiltrated nuclear weapons facilities, and have even caused our aircraft to crash. They can appear anytime and anywhere during peace or wartime. We can't control them.

We say this because we just thought you should know. We have no way of dealing with this phenomenon and we can't control it. Thank you and have a nice day."


Exactly! This is why the government is taking its "don't ask/don't tell" position on the subject. Many of the people who think the government should disclose would become very scared if this came from the government itself. Some would start revering the ETs and other would develop a hysterical paranoia. The post-Condon policy was designed to reduce public focus on the subject and to allow the advocates to discredit themselves.

Then would come all sorts of questions like what about the abductions? It's one thing if this is some kind of X-File mythology but if the government admits that is happening or even they can disprove it...big panic.

On Project Sign, I was making a specific point on how it relates to Roswell which happened two and a half months earlier than the Twining memo. Assuming that the general in change of the Air Materiel Command would be one of those cleared to know what had been recovered at Roswell, then why is he requesting a study be started to study what flying saucer are? He already knew and he knew that it had been decided to keep it secret. It would make more sense to do a Grudge-style disinformation effort instead.

So given that the Roswell case is very fuzzy at best this gives us another window on how to evaluate it. It seems to me to favor no ET crash at Roswell based on contradictory behavior by the Air Force.

cda said...

John's Space:

The gospel according to the conspiracists is:

Twining knew all about Roswell but had to write his memo to downplay this knowledge and, realising that his memo would be released one day, to convince the public that the USAF had no hardware to study in Sept 1947 (when of course they had).

Obvious, isn't it?

Brian Bell said...

@ John and CDA:

These are all really good points with an angle of view that could provide new insights as to the "what and why".

You're familiar already with some investigators who claim the military hides the truth of ET from us because how society would react out of sheer panic.

Some claim the military knows ET exists and works hard to debunk it because they are exploiting crashed saucer technology in black projects and break away civilizations all the while ET is peaceful and here to help us.

The conspiracy premise being that some day they will falsly claim an alien invasion as means to take over the world despite aliens being peaceful.

A new twist would be this:

The military has no clue as to what the phenomenon is and that scares them.

They work hard to debunk UFOs to downplay their concerns and keep the puplic skeptical and unaware, all the while they work to develop their own technology in an attempt to replicate how the phenomenon behaves. Blue Book and others were all part of the plan. Investigate and distract. They have to investigate covertly but not show total disinterest.

The purpose being to secretly build a defense just in case the phenomenon actually does turn out to be something threatening or truly some real alien invasion from space. They still don't know either way.

Since they don't know what it is, they work to build defenses in secret but not to hide aliens from us, but to actually protect and defend us just in case the phenomenon that persists turns out to be more hostile.

This would explain the drive to weaponize space, black budget aircraft, cover ups, NASA denials, McGovern told never to ask, and even some presidents kept in the dark, perhaps even threats against the public for disclosure of that truth.

They don't know what it is and they can't get a handle on it. They are essentially terrified by an uncontrollable phenomenon that defies all explanation.

They don't want us to know they can't control it and can't even explain it, but they want to build a defense against it while we remain calm and unaware.

They're actually doing their job.

John's Space said...

cda,

That is basically Kevin's view and he supports it with the idea that the real Roswell recovery/analysis project that it would have to be protected with a "bodyguard of lies" like the Ultra code breaking effort in WWII.

I just think that my construction is a little more simple (Occam's Razor) and better fits with the know actions in the Air Force in subsequent years.

Brian,

I think that line of thought you present are largely correct. However, the people in the know general are working on the assumption that the craft are from an advanced alien civilization that travels interstellar space with the ease that we can fly around the world. I doubt they have any real handle what the technologies are.

Given that there is was no available defense given that our best aircraft both then and now can't compete, what are they to do. I think they took some comfort has been taken that we haven't been attacked yet. They obviously have a duty to do what they can to develop a defense capability. However, doing anything that would promote pubic panic or reduce the prestige of the government would be counterproductive.

Brian Bell said...

@ John

Yes perhaps. This explains the claims of "UFO Officers" at USAF facilities, the creation and compilation of fake MJ12 documents, SOM1-01, and other distractors designed to mix fiction with some fact as standard counter intelligence activities.

"...distract, confuse and discredit anyone who looks into the mystery...all the while continuing to pursue it secretly to discover its truth."

Like others, their hunch is the phenomenon is ET, yet they can't exactly prove it either. That's their best guess but they are uncertain for sure

I call this "chasing the cosmic dog tail".

ufodude2010 said...

@Brian Bell - "So far there is no proof this event was a time machine or alien visitor. If anything I think it more likely (if it did happen as described) the observed was a surveillance device of military origin." Military equipment that nobody at a military base can explain, not even a colonel that witnessed the event? Makes no sense. Must've been the lighthouse. Yeah, that's it.

Brian Bell said...

@ ufo dude

Sure it was an alien spaceship from our future. You guessed it right. But now you'll need to prove it. I bet you can't.

Now more importantly, the military doesn't send everyone a weekly memo updating each and every enlisted man or officer on the latest weapons developments. It's not like some commercial company with a weekly email from the CEO.

Classified information is compartmentalized On purpose. USAPs are secret for a reason.

And who's to say it was one of "ours" to begin with? Do you think the Russians or Chinese never do espionage?

Nieve...

John's Space said...

Brain & ufodude,

I don't see how the Rendelsham event can be due to any craft with circa 1980 or even present Earth technology. Either the people are lying or they witnessed something that is beyond the technology of current Earth civilization. It doesn't make sense for the individuals involved to be fabricating the original story either. If some new elements were added later that could be do to various things but since there were contemporaneous records they should be given priority.

This explains the claims of "UFO Officers" at USAF facilities, the creation and compilation of fake MJ12 documents, SOM1-01, and other distractors designed to mix fiction with some fact as standard counter intelligence activities.

There are various theories of who created these fake documents. It could be that some or all were created by the government or they could be done by various individuals for their own motives. It is clear that it has kept things confused and helped with the cover up.

It is has been clearly established that AFOSI agent Richard Doty give a fake Aquarius document to Linda Howe to read as part of a disinformation campaign. So it is clear that at least on one occasion the government did create (or caused to be created) fake documents to adversely affect ufology. So it isn't beyond possibility that several the other fake documents have a similar origin and purpose.

Brian Bell said...

Why exactly do folks think we don't have advanced technology? Because it's not told to us by the military? Because defense contractors making billions of dollars don't show us? Because it's not flown at your local air show?

John's Space said...

Brian,

Why exactly do folks think we don't have advanced technology?

It's all relative. Certainly our technology is vastly advanced over what we had even a few decades ago. Consider today vs. 1940 for example.

What distinguishes "UFO" technology from anything in the human world of 1980 or today is specifically propulsion related. (No doubt that many other things as well.) The UFO moves without propellers or jet thrusters. It accelerates quietly with no back blast. It accelerates at g-levels that would crush human occupants. It goes supersonic and even hypersonic without making sonic booms.

We don't have that yet!

Deep black programs to push the state of the art at times but they usually are black more for the purposes/missions they are intended than the actual tech is something that would stupefy uncleared engineering/science professors.

Dolan has created an mythology about what is going on in the black world for example. It seems to me that part of this is because his expertise is in history rather than engineering/physical sciences he can't tell the difference from the plausible and the absurd.

Paul Young said...

@ Brian Bell..."Why exactly do folks think we don't have advanced technology? Because it's not told to us by the military? Because defense contractors making billions of dollars don't show us? Because it's not flown at your local air show?"


The simple answer Brian, would be that after 35 years it isn't being used.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread...within a few months of the first atom bomb test, A-bomb was used. As soon as U2 and SR71 were developed, they were used.
Whatever technology was being used at Rendlesham, it could land, take-off and navigate through dense forestry. It could dart across the sky at incredible speed then stop to a hover, all in silence...and could break into separate parts then later re-merge.
Considering your country,and mine, have been at war with someone almost non-stop since the 1990's,then why hasn't this stuff been deployed?
Why was it only noticed on one occasion (over three nights.) 35 years ago?

If it was purely an exercise to test the readiness of the men guarding that nuclear airbase...then why were the men not then debriefed on how they could have gone about things better? That's the whole point of drills and exercises.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

"As I mentioned in an earlier thread...within a few months of the first atom bomb test, A-bomb was used."

>>>Yes Paul but the US deployed it to end a war. It's not like you can hide an atomic explosion. But you can hide weapons development and deployment if it doesn't require a devastating explosion to use it.

"As soon as U2 and SR71 were developed, they were used."

>>>True Paul but they weren't disclosed to the general public until they had to be. The U-2 would have remained a secret if not for the 1960 Powers incident. And the SR-71 and OXCART did remain secret until their service was no longer sufficient for the task. We act as though the entire military and the world knew of these aircraft and their covert purpose while deployed, but that isn't true at all. In fact, the CIA released new documents in 2013 revealing even more detail on the use of these aircraft which remained hidden for 40+ years.

"The simple answer Brian, would be that after 35 years it isn't being used.....why hasn't this stuff been deployed?"

How do we know it's not being deployed? Why would we have a need to know? Take the confirmed written comments of Ben Rich (forget the false ET drivel attributed to him though) when Andrews wrote asking what he thought about the possible existence of either manmade or extraterrestrial UFOs. Rich responded, “I’m a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible.” He cautioned, however, that, “In both categories, there are a lot of kooks and charlatans – be cautious.”

Tesla, Brown and others theorized the capability that electrogravitic propulsion was possible. They designed prototypes and tested concepts - all back in the 1930's and even before. The Germans toyed with these concepts to weaponize them during the 1940's. And some insiders claim that by the late 1950's the US had demonstrated their ability to apply that technology to aircraft.

It isn't hard to see the possibility this may be an explanation for some sightings. Tom Valone and Hal Puthoff have concluded it's possible to create over-unity drives from the zero-point. Pour trillions of black budget dollars into that research and tell me it's not feasible.

Yet people just love to imagine humanity as being intellectually incapable and needing help from "star people" to do miraculous things.

ufodude2010 said...

@Brian Bell -- Name calling is inappropriate, sir. It's fine to state your opinion, but it seems I hit a sensitive area regarding the logic (or illogic) regarding your particular argument. If this was human technology, then let's assume it was American. Again, it makes no sense to fly an advanced craft over an American military base by a covert American agency, whoever that may be. Now, let's say it's Chinese or Russian. I have to admit that's possible. Keep in mind, however, that this kind of an argument could explain away almost each and every extraterrestrial event that ever existed in modern times. It's an easy out. It's 35 years later, and we would probably know about that kind of a technology by now, don't you think? In any case, I love the back and forth debate, but not when you revert to name calling. This is precisely what Kevin has been talking about that has deterred reaching solid conclusions on various cases among the UFO community. Maybe it's time to change that.

Brian Bell said...

@ ufo dude

Name calling? You mean "nigh-eve"? Sorry if that offends.

My point is that thinking human technology can't be one source of the explanation is indeed "nigh-eve". That's hardly name calling. If you want name calling examine Rudiak's comments.

Please also bear in mind this is more a "believers blog" than anything else. Skeptics here, including outspoken ones, aren't really that welcome. Allowed yes. Welcome? Well...I don't know.

IMO believers don't want to be challenged to think critically about their assumptions - they tend to favor discussing their beliefs with fellow believers. Any challenge to the ETH provokes real name calling as in "Bird Brain", "Google Scholar" and "Skeptibunker" - now that's name calling. But ETers are fine giving one as long as they aren't called a name themselves.

But onto your comments:

"I have to admit that's possible. Keep in mind, however, that this kind of an argument could explain away almost each and every extraterrestrial event that ever existed in modern times. It's an easy out. It's 35 years later, and we would probably know about that kind of a technology by now, don't you think? In any case, I love the back and forth."

Please go back and read my post to Paul. If it were human tech, there's no telling whose it was. If it were US I wouldn't be surprised either. Recall the NSA debacle in having been spying on every US citizen through use of our private communications devices. If they can do that, why can't they have similar reason to do so on our own military?

Now if it were foreign then it stands a better chance of being an aggressor nation, but let's not forget that even allies spy on each other as well. Was it British and hence today a reason why certain documents haven't been released?

As for the description and movements of the Rendelsham object, well that testimony is debatable and conflicting between witnesses.

And if this explanation were to dismiss and explain away most UFO sightings, what's there to be afraid of? Isn't the truth better than thinking ET has arrived when he hasn't?

As far as this being an "easy out" I don't think so really. It means that governments are hiding technology from us for their own betterment, including multinational corporations.

That's pretty complex.

John's Space said...

And the SR-71 and OXCART did remain secret until their service was no longer sufficient for the task.

Actually the SR-71 was revealed on 25 July 1964 by President Johnson to score political points in the presidential campaign. This was before the first test flight and the first operational SR-71 mission was flown on 21 March 1968. So its existence was revealed well before it ceased to have operational usefulness.

The F-117A was operational for only about four years before its existence was formally revealed.

Ufodude is basically correct. If such revolutionary tech was in our hands back in 1980 it would be revealed by now. UFO go back before 1947.

Tesla, Brown and others theorized the capability that electrogravitic propulsion was possible.

This is basically fringe science. There is no known basis for this in mainstream science. Believing we have master such technologies more than 35 years ago is less credible than the ETH.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said,..."How do we know it's not being deployed? Why would we have a need to know?"

Because, (like I said) anything as strange as the craft used at Rendlesham would have been noticed by now. (It was pretty conspicuous to those chaps in the forest!)
35 years is a long time for stuff like that not to have been noticed by other countries forces. To paraphrase you from a couple of your comments back, humanity isn't so intellectually incapable that they wouldn't be able to spot stuff like that.

If it hasn't been noticed...then it mustn't be getting used.
Quite why a government would pour billions, maybe trillions, into black projects, get them to perform so well in trials over places like Rendlesham, then not use them, is beyond me.
I can only come to the conclusion that it wasn't one of "ours".


Brian Bell said, "As for the description and movements of the Rendelsham object, well that testimony is debatable and conflicting between witnesses."


You have to remember that Rendlesham was conducted over 3 nights. 3 seperate groups of people were involved with each incident.
More importantly...Considering many sceptics use the argument that some Roswell witnesses may have colluded to either get "their story straight"...or "get in on the act"...then it should be comforting to know that so many of the main players in the Rendlesham Incident are still so utterly baffled by it that they can't even agree with what they saw.
On the first night, despite practically standing together, Penniston and Burroughs have very different perspectives. It's proof positive that they haven't combined to tell a tall tale.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

"Because, (like I said) anything as strange as the craft used at Rendlesham would have been noticed by now. (It was pretty conspicuous to those chaps in the forest!)".

Paul, and what about the strange UFO sightings that people claim today are numerous and worldwide? Doesn't that indicate they are seeing something? Including triangular craft?

The fact that you state different people saw different things which then verifies what they saw was actually the same thing - an alien time machine - makes little sense to me.

They saw something, but since they can't agree on specifics it raises doubt about what they did see; its behavior, size, physical dimensions, etc. It also raises questions about their ability to recall details, how they might substitute memories for missing detail, and their overall mental health at the time and presently.

About all we can confirm is that something was seen over a course of several nights.

Things that fly around Air Force bases generally have something to do with the military.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said..."Paul, and what about the strange UFO sightings that people claim today are numerous and worldwide? Doesn't that indicate they are seeing something? Including triangular craft?"

No doubt the vast, VAST majority of sightings are of new high performance aircraft that the average man on the street may consider "out of this world", and may report it as such.
But in the case of Rendlesham, we have men who (despite varying accounts) all claim that what they saw was performing at levels not seen even today...let alone 35 years ago.
Not only that, they weren't the "average man on the street". They were men trained in aircraft recognition. I'm not sure about the US Air force but in the Royal Navy we referred to it as IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) And we permanently trained at it....The idea being that if we can quickly identify everything around us, it goes a huge way to not shooting at our own boys.


Brian Bell said, "The fact that you state different people saw different things which then verifies what they saw was actually the same thing - an alien time machine - makes little sense to me."

I'm surprised that the point I was making (about the differences in perspective of 3 different groups witnessing 3 different incidents over the period of 3 different nights) makes little sense to you!

I think the point is extremely obvious...but that's just me.


As for your time machine comment...Out of the many witnesses over the period of 3 nights, I only know of one (Penniston) who SPECULATED that it MAY have been a "time machine"...(not an "alien" time machine, incidently,) but one of ours from the future. And like I said earlier in this thread, for me, Penniston (unlike the others) seems to build up his story to coincide with every major anniversary and is now, beyond his original statement, untrustworthy. He seems to be more interested in "ufo celebrity" than relating the story.


Paul Young said...

part 2...

Brian Bell..."About all we can confirm is that something was seen over a course of several nights."

Errrm. I'd never thought of that!!!

Brian Bell..."Things that fly around Air Force bases generally have something to do with the military."

Things that fly around Air Force bases UNINVITED risk getting blown out of the sky. This high performance, trillion pound, prototype (that you suggest)...that was basically taking the piss out of the US Airforce staff at Bentwaters was playing a dangerous game.

I can tell you,unequivocally, that if that had been flying in the airspace of one of the 3 frigates I served on, we would have been watching and recording it very closely...but if it had hovered above us and fired a beam in our direction (especially at the magazine,ffs as it did to Bentwaters bunker) then we would have made every attempt to shoot it down.

If this was one of your expensive super duper black projects, then it was taking a big and expensive risk.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

So ask yourself why a bunch of servicemen went plodding through the forest chasing lights, when as if you claim, they should have scrambled some jets, fired at it from the ground, and alerted Washington a nuclear weapons facility was under attack?

Were they just memorized by the dazzling beauty of the colored alien lights? Perhaps for you that's a resounding yes.

If so, I guess our enemies learned something profound. US military personnel at nuclear weapons sites can be overcome and rendered incapable by flashing colored lights no matter what their source.

Overall, there isn't any evidence of ET. Just conflicting reports of various lights and beams flickering in the forrest. There may be a radiation exposure trail but it isn't confirmed only claimed.

So conflicting witness testimony is now considered accurate because of its contradictions, and one guy must be telling the truth because he recieved binary code in his brain which he then journaled and made known years later.

Yah, that really sounds like compelling evidence that no human could have been responsible, just creatures from outer space.

Paul Young said...

From what I can gather, during the first part of the incident the base was not considered to be in any danger. The lights were seen only in the forest itself, as was the landed craft.

It was only the last act of the UFO, during the incident where Halt was present, (ie...shining beams of light onto the bunkers at the base) when alarm set in. This final act was something that started and ended extremely quickly.


Brian Bell said..."Yah, that really sounds like compelling evidence that no human could have been responsible, just creatures from outer space."

Considering that even 35 years later, no one seems to have been able to produce the kind of craft that can replicate what these craft seem to have been able to achieve...like navigate through dense forest...land and take off through forest canopy,etc. Then it is certainly feasible that it was made elsewhere.

You also have to ask yourself why the witnesses where given such an intense (some would describe brutal) debrief over something that you regard to be so trivial.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

I never said it was "trivial" - I wrote that all we have is conflicting witness testimony about lights in the forest.

So they were debriefed - they would have been debriefed if the object(s) was suspect of being a foreign device anyway. Being debriefed doesn't mean the craft had to be an alien spaceship.

Despite conflicting testimony, you're hanging onto the idea the craft "moved through the trees" in ways human technology couldn't. So it was able to pass through tree trunks and branches at will like an apparition?

And so a flying object of unknown origin shows up three nights in a row hovering around a nuclear weapons facility doing maneuvers that defy explanation and no one thinks it's a problem until beams of light shine down from one?

Just a guess, but maybe that was the purpose of the drill - test to see if security is what it out to be at nuclear weapons sites.

Maybe their debrief was rough because they didn't respond as they should've.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said..."I never said it was "trivial" - I wrote that all we have is conflicting witness testimony about lights in the forest."


I'm not sure why you can't seem to understand the fact that the Rendlesham Incident was played over 3 separate nights.
There was "conflicting witness testimony", because what happened on night didn't happen on the other nights. The main group of witnesses from the first night, Burroughs, Pennison and Cabansag don't conflict in the main jist of their story...that they drove out of the base to investigate what they thought might be a downed aircraft....that radio static made them quickly lose contact with the base...that on approaching the lights they realised it wasn't a plane or helo...that Penniston approached closer to the point that he walked round it, touch it, photographed it, sketched it and sketched symbols that he could see on it. That they all felt strong sense of electrical static and then they watched it take off and fly away at tremendous speed. No confliction.

The group of witnesses for the second night (Halt and his men) saw something that completely conflicted with that of the guys on the first night...because it was a totally seperate incident.

(Are you following this Brian, old bean?)

This group of witnesses from the second night, however, more or less agree with Halt's story, and agree that the dictaphone commentary was an accurate representation of events.

The only serious contention is that no one seems to vouch for Warren's story for the 3rd night...in fact Halt is openly hostile to suggestions Warren was present on any of the occasions and believes Warren has been "messed with" in order to weaken the credibility of the story.

Get it? Rendlesham was made of 3 separate incidents...So we get (as anyone who is not a moron would understand) 3 separate stories.


Brian Bell said..."So they were debriefed - they would have been debriefed if the object(s) was suspect of being a foreign device anyway. Being debriefed doesn't mean the craft had to be an alien spaceship."

On plenty of occasions I've been on exercises, and then afterward I've been debriefed. Sometimes we got a pat on the back and sometimes we got a bollocking...but not once did I find myself being strapped down on a stretcher while someone injected me with drugs.

Maybe that's an American thing!
We just tended to get a kick up the arse for half an hour...then have a cup of tea and some biscuits.


Paul Young said...

part 2

Brian Bell said... "And so a flying object of unknown origin shows up three nights in a row hovering around a nuclear weapons facility doing maneuvers that defy explanation and no one thinks it's a problem until beams of light shine down from one?"

Not exactly 3 nights "in a row"...but this is an important point and why I commented earlier about how I'd expect any of my old ships commanders to have acted.

On the 1st night, the guys found the craft landed in the forest. At this time, they had no contact with the base due to the static on the radios. After a while it took off and went away. So they had no way of raising support while they were with it...and no need of support after it had gone.

2nd night. Halt has heard rumour of the the 1st night but apparently didn't take it too seriously. Then he hears that the lights are back in the forest so he gets a crew together to investigate.
Now I don't know what the protocol is for deciding at what stage you ring the RAF (don't forget anything off that base is our patch...not the USAF's) and ask them to scramble Tornados to blow up lights spotted in a forest...but Halt obviously didn't think that point had arrived yet.

Halt then went out in the forest, with his men. By the time things got interesting, the special lighting they had brought out with them, and the radios, all failed. Like the guys on the 1st night...they were incommunicado. From everything we've probably read and heard from Halt, he was extremely concerned at this point...and if he could have done, he may probably would have called back to the base and asked for some heavy duty assistance. But he was out of touch and by all accounts, by the time he was able to contact the base again...the UFO /s, had done what it wanted to do and had buggered off. I suppose that calling for the RAF to check out a UFO at that stage would have been the equivalent of chasing yourself up your own arse.

Paul Young said...

part 3,

Brian Bell said, " you're hanging onto the idea the craft "moved through the trees" in ways human technology couldn't. So it was able to pass through tree trunks and branches at will like an apparition?"


I have to wonder how you come up with so much drivel so effortlessly. It's a rare talent, :-)

It's been well documented from the start that the craft spotted on the ground on the first night didn't "pass through tree trunks"...but navigated through (as in around) the trees and foliage, on occasion breaking off branches and leaving abrasion on trunks etc. No one has ever described it as an "apparition". This is just something else that you seem to be injecting into the story...as you seemingly have tried (and been comprehensively caught out on) to with aspects of the Roswell case.

Steve Sawyer said...

Jacques Vallee once told me, when I asked him what he thought the Rendlesham incident amounted to or involved, that in his opinion it was most likely to have been a psyop of some kind, or military/intelligence "staged display" intended to gauge the behavior and reactions of military personnel to what may have been a simulated UFO event. I presume he was just speculating...

James Kelly said...

Brian Bell Wrote:

"And so a flying object of unknown origin shows up three nights in a row hovering around a nuclear weapons facility doing maneuvers that defy explanation and no one thinks it's a problem until beams of light shine down from one?

Just a guess, but maybe that was the purpose of the drill - test to see if security is what it out to be at nuclear weapons sites.

Maybe their debrief was rough because they didn't respond as they should've."



Brian,

I was stationed at RAF Lakenheath, England, at the time of this incident as a security police specialist, just like John Burroughs was, but at a different base.

RAF Lakenheath utilized F-111 aircraft, as well as a Victor Alert area, F-111's uploaded with priority A ordinance ( nuclear) in large steel and cement hangars.

The base also contained a WSA or Weapons Storage Area bunkers with priority A ordinance ( Nuclear) as well. John's base had the WSA but not the Victor area since it was a smaller base.

There were frequent tactical base exercises at my base but we always heard rumors about them before they happened. However, when the hostages were taken in IRAN, we went on full alert. We were all shocked when all of the F-111 aircraft uploaded with nuclear weapons came out of their barns, and parked next to each other for several hours on the tarmac. We all knew something had happened in the world and we thought that might be it...

If there was such an exercise on John's base, the upper security command would have had to be notified to be prepared and there would have been rumors of this exercise. I asked John about this as well and he said there was no rumor on these three nights when this UFO incident played out.

I can tell you from my experiences in the Air Force, there is absolutely ZERO chance that any Air Force Command would allow any type of aircraft to hover over a WSA and shoot any type of light or laser beams down into a bunker for an exercise of security personnel. We averaged two exercises a week but never and I mean never would a commander get or receive permission to breach a nuclear storage area from the air to do so.

In our WSA we had multiple 4 man SRT teams equipped with automatic weapons and a tower operator monitoring all alarms in the bunkers below. There is no way that the security police specialist did not see this incident unfold. We were trained that if we felt that the area was being attacked in any way, we had authorization to use deadly force to protect the WSA with our lives. I am sure it was the same on John's base as well.

Brian, I do admire your tenacity and skeptic views on UFO's. However, don't let the rhetoric get in way of the reported incident that something very bizarre and unusual took place on those three nights in England that changed some lives forever.

I was never close to John Burroughs but spoke to him often about this incident, I can safely say that he made none of this up, and it had a very negative psychological impact on both his personal and work life.

Lastly, John never said that what happened to him was some type of an alien invasion, but he would have sure liked to know what happened and he was leaving all options open for an explanation.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul - more dialogue:

"...strapped down on a stretcher while someone injected me with drugs."

>>>The witnesses claimed that but after the fact. There is no evidence of it. NO EVIDENCE. Conrad denies it. Were they debriefed by someone? Yes, Halt and Penniston by Conrad himself. We can't assume post event testimony of "drug injections" by AFOSI is accurate. And if they did receive drugs, why just the enlisted men and why not Halt?

"So they had no way of raising support while they were with it...and no need of support after it had gone."

>>>Yes and your assumption is the craft's power plant (electromagnetic) or some jamming device emanating from it prevented their ability to communicate. You state they saw a craft, saw it maneuver oddly, touched it, photographed it, and drew some pictures, but then they go back to their base AND FAIL to draw the proper attention of the base commander regarding this? Penniston is the only airman to claim he saw a triangular craft. The others all originally stated they saw and chased "lights".

And then:

"2nd night. Halt has heard rumour of the the 1st night but apparently didn't take it too seriously."

>>>So the men didn't report it (or not properly at least) since Halt, the deputy base commander, hadn't been briefed either; he just heard "rumors".

That raises questions about whether proper protocols were followed, not to mention if anyone was paying any attention at all.

Hypothetically, compare what would have happened if a Soviet commando unit had been in those woods with electronic jamming devices and the ability to camouflage sufficiently to get out of sight. These men would have just gone back to base and not reported anything? I doubt it, so why in this case do they ignore following up properly?

I'm stating this for a reason. Because they would have. That means something isn't right with their story.

"...but navigated through (as in around) the trees and foliage, on occasion breaking off branches and leaving abrasion on trunks etc. No one has ever described it as an "apparition"."

>>>My objective in stating the nonsensical was to point out that somehow you believe navigating in and around trees is a miraculous feat that human technology couldn't replicate. Obviously hovering drones can be remotely controlled from a safe distance.

But more importantly it's been shown the light distortions in the woods can make things appear to be moving when they aren't.

@ Steve Sawyer

Yes I am aware of Valle's theory. Obviously I'm not the only one to suggest this. Although like others he was ostracized by the UFO community because he didn't totally agree with the ETH.

@ James Kelly

Quality commentary. Thank you. If Burroughs was open to other possibilities then some folks should perhaps stop insisting it could only be a craft of alien origin or a time machine.

Paul Young said...

part 1...

Brian Bell said..."The witnesses claimed that but after the fact. There is no evidence of it. NO EVIDENCE."

It's probably not the kind of thing that the interrogators would want made public...that patriots who have VOLUNTEERED to serve their country could be threatened by their own people in such a way....and drugged, etc.
I'd say that's bad for morale and just might put off future potential recruits for taking up a career in the US armed forces...so don't expect a paper trail!


Brian Bell... "And if they did receive drugs, why just the enlisted men and why not Halt?"


Lieutenant Colonels get treated a whole lot better than enlisted men, dummy! (Do you know ANYTHING about military life?!)




Brian Bell said..."Yes and your assumption is the craft's power plant (electromagnetic) or some jamming device emanating from it prevented their ability to communicate."

Absolutely.


Brian Bell said..."You state they saw a craft, saw it maneuver oddly, touched it, photographed it, and drew some pictures, but then they go back to their base AND FAIL to draw the proper attention of the base commander regarding this?"


The group present on the first night of the event all claim to have suffered with fatigue and disorientation after approaching the craft.
Penniston and Burroughs, in particular, seems to have been exposed to radiation that has affected him ever since and has been requesting for years (unsuccessfully) to have his medical records released to him. On top of this, they were also worried that no one would believe them. (You don't believe them Brian...so they might have had a good point in thinking their CO wouldn't either.)


Brian Bell said..." Penniston is the only airman to claim he saw a triangular craft. The others all originally stated they saw and chased "lights".

There you go making up your own tales again. Triangular, diamond shaped, whatever...Burroughs has repeatedly claimed to have seen the landed UFO. All the players have admitted to "watering down" their initial reports.
Halt, because he thought it would damage his career...and the enlisted men, because they were intimidated into "watering down" during the above mentioned debrief.

Paul Young said...

part 2

Brian Bell said..."My objective in stating the nonsensical was to point out that somehow you believe navigating in and around trees is a miraculous feat that human technology couldn't replicate. Obviously hovering drones can be remotely controlled from a safe distance."

Obviously remotely controlled drones can hover and manoeuvre in the air. But I'd like to see one (especially 35 years ago)manoeuvre through dense forestry. That's a different kettle of fish to being able to manoeuvre in open air-space....and you know it.


Brian Bell said..."But more importantly it's been shown the light distortions in the woods can make things appear to be moving when they aren't."


Ahhhh! The flying lighthouse theory!
Chuckle... I bet Hynek wished he could have come up with something as hilarious as that, as opposed to the moderately hilarious (by comparison) "swamp gas". :-)

zoamchomsky said...

Didn't know I was missing a RendleSham discussion.

Astronomer Ian Ridpath has totally, thoroughly, in every which way, debunked this silliness so that no question about it remains:

A reentering soviet rocket booster caused a rash of "UFO" reports across the south and east of England, roughly Dorset to Norfolk, on Christmas night, setting the psychological stage for a "UFO" event. At 3AM, a bright meteor caused some base personnel to mistakenly think they had seen a flaming aircraft crash into the forest. A patrol investigated this misperception.

So they were totally confused from the git-go. And once they tromped through forest and fields in search of wreckage--finding nothing and seeing only a distant beacon that appeared to move as they moved, a common illusion--they finally found themselves, Burroughs being closest to the shore, staring at the flashing lighthouse beacon.

Burroughs and Cabansag's statements--written at the time--confirm this fact to anyone who can read.

Two days later, the entirely predisposed Halt returned to base and heard the "UFO" story. That night, Halt simply repeated the wild goose chase through the woods towards the lighthouse and hoaxed it all up using all the "UFO" narrative tropes he knew.

While Halt by radio comically described "UFOs" in the sky, mere stars, shooting down "beams of light" to the base commander, he jokingly responded, "Gee, I can't see any of that from here." Responsible base personnel later said it was all just the holiday season silliness of a few juvenile-minded "UFO" nuts and pranksters.

Like most "UFO" stories, the RendleSham doesn't require some fantastic back story or grand conspiracy, it was simply a bunch of holiday silliness compounded by Halt's hoax.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

John's Space said...

Like most "UFO" stories, the RendleSham doesn't require some fantastic back story or grand conspiracy, it was simply a bunch of holiday silliness compounded by Halt's hoax.

This doesn't at all correspond to reality. Col. Halt still stands by the events of that might. So do the other individuals.

Paul Young said...

As soon as Ridpath's name is mentioned, I know I'm going to have a good laugh!

And zoamchomsky certainly didn't let me down!

:-)


about nothing said...

Well I sure have missed nothing as I keep a sharp eye on all things RFI.
I have a vested interest in certain elements of this case, so I ensure I keep
up with all things. I note that the binary element of Jims is about to be let loose so am sure that will bring a further outcry ;).

zoamchomsky said...

John says, "This doesn't at all correspond to reality."

Sure it does, John. Read Burroughs and Cabansag's statements, they say very clearly that the flashing light in the forest was the distant sweeping and flashing lighthouse beacon at a lower elevation seen through fog.

"Halt still stands by the events of that might. So do the other individuals."

Halt wasn't even there the first night for the honestly misperceived series of events that led to the wild goose chase through the woods towards the lighthouse.

And once he had returned and heard about it all, being entirely predisposed to the "UFO" myth, he simply recreated the sequence of events and hoaxed it up: the tape recording--on which the interval of Halt's flashing "UFO" exactly matches the lighthouse beacon and "UFO's" location matched the lighthouse's position on the horizon--the notebook, plaster casts of ordinary rabbit scapes, forester's marks on trees to be cut, the barking of a Muntjac deer, normal radiation readings, and fallen limbs. All perfectly normal things found in a forest become Halt's props for his preconceived "UFO" hoax. His goofy confabulatory letter to the MOD written weeks later was just another prop in this hoax.

John, do not underestimate a committed "UFO" hoaxster, if they'll tell a phony "UFO" story and manufacture "evidence" to begin with they'll say anything to keep it alive. There's money to be had in a "UFO" story. How many times have these guys changed their stories, enhanced and equivocated? The lighthouse beacon was there all along, that's a hard fact, but Halt didn't see a lighthouse beacon, he thought he saw a "UFO" in its place, or pretended that he did.

People can be honestly mistaken and tell a "UFO" story; and then there are hoaxsters.

zoamchomsky said...

Yes, Paul, and people who default to the old "flying lighthouse" straw-man aren't really interested in the facts of this case, are they?

zoamchomsky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zoamchomsky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zoamchomsky said...

"the binary element of Jims is about to be let loose"

Oh, we've heard it all already. As if this story wasn't phony enough, now JP is claiming to be receiving telepathic communications from space aliens, in binary code no less. They're concerned about Earth's welfare, nuclear weapons and global warming. That's a new one. He could have been a big hit at a Giant Rock flying-saucer convention.

The RendleSham: Phonier and Phonier

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2015_07_01_archive.html

about nothing said...

Am well aware Z. And yep it has all been heard before, but he has yet
to release his research or Gary Osborn's work, that is to come. No , he never
says aliens, it has always been us from our future. Perhaps he should
join John in 2018 and hike up bell rock then, it seems to be something Burroughs
is supporting. I believe there will be a portal ;). On a more serious note, you
have only heard half of it. Oh and there is now the Georgia binary perpetuated
by Burroughs, Red Collie and LMH.

Robert said...

UFOLOGY experiences periods of decline and rise. More cyclical in nature. The hype around the then alleged Roswell Slides were just an event up, hype, then down. That doesn't reflect nor should it become symbolic og "all" of UFOLOGY. If it did or does then you can make the case that certain Roswell witnesses that fabricated stories were symbolic of the entire Roswell account i.e bogus. We know that isn't true nor do the represent the status of Roswell or ufology.

zoamchomsky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zoamchomsky said...

Yes, we all had a lot of fun with Gary. Time travelers, that's right. Thank you.

The Bell Rock Vortex. Oh, yes, lovely. (AZ is great but NM is truly enchanted.)

We've covered the Georgia story too, thanks, as I said above, "People can be honestly mistaken and tell a "UFO" story; and then there are hoaxsters."

Or one could be both, have a genuine misperception and then manufacture evidence to try to convince others and make a few bucks. C.J. refused to believe that what he saw was a rocket booster reentry when the object of his report was identified. Then he claimed to have seen both; and then he got hooked up with that wild-eyed LMH and started with the JP copycat telepathic dreamtime binary-code message written on the back of a Motel 6 receipt! No doubt this story will have further enhancements.

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2015/10/a-saucerized-satellite-re-entry-in.html

Paul Young said...

Bit of an elaborate hoax they all fell for, hey zoamchomsky!
That would rank up there with that "students hoax" that Lonnie Zamora supposedly fell for.

Strange that no one, after staging such an hilarious stunt, claims the glory for it!

Gary Osborn said...

"Yes, we all had a lot of fun with Gary."

Yes, it was fun Zoam, and I'm sure that one day soon I'll be having some fun with you . . . again.
It has also been fun reading the useless and inane (look that word up and take note of all its meanings) comments on here from people who really don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Wind Swords said...

"Rendlesham has not gotten that bad but we have gone from strange lights in the sky and woods and landing traces to a landed ship, missing time, and a download of binary code (love how the code is in English - why couldn't they have just given it to him as English words?)."


Paul Young said...

"In fact, with his latest BS about the ever increasing pages of "binary code", I'd say that he's become as damaging to Rendlesham Incident as Kaufmann has been to Roswell (except for the fact that Jim was undoubtedly there.)"



Stefan Fasan said...

"Why Penniston came up with this binary code nonsense I don't know for sure, but I did an extensive analyses of it and nothing can be learned from that. It's just nonsense."


:-)))))))))))))

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Young said...

@ Gary Osborn...
If you had been reading carefully, you'd realise that, over-all, I believe Rendlesham was probably an ET event.
What I can't understand is why Penniston sat on the "supposedly" extra 12 pages of binary code for almost 30 years.

Penniston has done nothing but damage the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB9pnL4fSH0

Gary Osborn said...

I have thought about this, and there are a few reasons given. Jim will say that he didn't want to come forward with the code at all and it still would have been locked away somewhere today, if John Burroughs hadn't of seen the ones and zeroes in the notebook and asked what they were. But from what I now understand, and this appears to be the deeper reason: the period of 30 years was the time needed for the technology to be available for us to be able to decode the additional meaning from the coordinates, which is a code in itself.

Gary Osborn said...

I don't agree that he has damaged the case. From your position you are merely assuming things and stating them as fact, and the people on here should have the intelligence to know that 'assumption' is the mother of all f***ups.

about nothing said...

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jim received binary codes in 1980 from the alleged touched craft , none whatsoever. There is no evidence that Jim went round the craft and documented all that is claimed either. In fact John has in fact said its all BS and he did not do this. Ian Ridpath has those details and it is on the web site about this. There is plenty evidence that there is and has been some strange dealings both in the public and private sector re the binary codes and other things. There is evidence that Jim has not told the whole truths and in fact lied here and there for whatever reasons. There is NO evidence of a hoax however, that I know of?. There is evidence that I also wrote to Col.Halt re some very particular binary code which I saw Jim write in 2011. There is also written evidence by Jim to myself that there was 13 pages of binary and not 16. That became 16 pages as time continued,. As we know Gary the formal web site also said 13 and this was changed quickly after I told you about this and you investigated that element further, it was then changed to the 16 official pages, or what was to become official. However we can go in square circles re this as you yourself have said none of this matters, all that matters are your findings and we have gone in this circle on the Sceptic page. I find nothing funny in any of this and from my perspective, I find the whole situation very disturbing indeed. In fact I will go as far as saying I wish I had never been involved with Jim and seeing all the things I did when I was present with him. That is a story in itself and I can only hope that if Jim does present his findings along with your research, that he finally puts to rest ALL the inconsistencies' others have seen and questioned over these past years and he finally tells of what had been going on with him past and present some of which I was privy to. If all this is going to result in simply your own findings and none of all that I mentioned put to rest, then I would be highly suspect. There is also NO evidence of ETs of any kind. Furthermore any work been done by you Gary was as a direct result of Jims claimed dreams of 23.5 of which Jim told me about, with that occurring, I felt with your background re 23.5 you may of been able to assist Jim, never dreaming what was to follow with my interaction with Jim. What am trying to say here, despite this or that. Many things need to be ironed out by Jim first and foremost. Also I would hope others with strong investigative backgrounds and the means to investigate further, that they look into all of this with a fine toothcomb, having dreams for starters leading to what we are seeing now, is way too contrived. Otherwise, theres no sh.ts and giggles coming from me, I will save all that for reading over the Georgia waffle creation.

Gary Osborn said...

And as for it being an "ET event," I would not assume such things and have no belief one way or the other. Despite people's assumptions on where I stand in all this, I am really quite skeptical about most things, always try to remain objective and I don't arrive at conclusions easily. In other words, I won't place all my eggs in one basket and neither will I throw out the baby with the bathwater. What I AM saying, and because I have personally worked on it these past 4-5 years, is that there is definitely more to the code than people realise.

Gary Osborn said...

'Word salad' and most of it irrelevant to me personally. You have personal issues, which are not my issues. In any case, most of what you bring up and keep on regurgitating can be resolved with simple, logical answers - as Jim has explained to me - and all will be answered in time . . . I will make sure of it, as I too wish to see certain things resolved.

about nothing said...

There is nothing personal re the binary code Gary, it is a public case. Lets hope it is as you believe and that Jims explanations are simple and logical. I look forward to finally hearing what he has to say on what he has not told and the simple and logical explanations to it all :)

Gary Osborn said...

Really?!

Brian Bell said...

Gary and I have exchanged comments about his work on another blog, and although we disagree I can't say it was an unpleasant exchange.

But I pointed out to Gary that when we have witness who claim extraordinary events we must take the time to evaluate them mentally and physically - and Ufologists generally skip this going from problem directly to solution.

I think Penniston is a good case of undiagnosed mental illness along the lines of schizophrenia. Which is defined as:

"Positive symptoms are disturbances that are “added” to the person’s personality.
Delusions -- false ideas--individuals may believe that someone is spying on him or her, or that they are someone famous.
Hallucinations –seeing, feeling, tasting, hearing or smelling something that doesn’t really exist. The most common experience is hearing imaginary voices that give commands or comments to the individual.
Disordered thinking and speech -- moving from one topic to another, in a nonsensical fashion. Individuals may make up their own words or sounds."

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/schizophrenia

A very common symptom is one where the patient believes they are receiving messages from aliens and often in code or radio transmissions from their teeth or inside their brain.

Penniston's case is the same except he thinks he is being given the message in binary code.

I think Gary is chasing undiagnosed mental illness.



Gary Osborn said...

Hi Brian,

Yes, our brief exchanges were not unpleasant and I'm sure there are many things we would agree on, but not this.
I'm sure there are many people on here who would prefer to think or believe that.
In any case, saying that I am "chasing undiagnosed mental illness," which you have projected onto Jim - hardly applies to the work I have been doing, which has largely been focused on the seven sets of coordinates from the code and the additional 'other level' of information they have produced - which, in my opinion, was not devised by Jim Penniston . . .

Gary Osborn said...

And I should add that whoever DID devise it was certainly NOT suffering from some form of 'undiagnosed mental illness.'

Brian Bell said...

Gary -

If he has not been examined by physicians it's difficult to remove the possibility he has mental illness.

The illness can manifest in such a way that if he has any knowledge of cryptology his mind may be inventing complex patterns even though he remains completely unaware of it himself.

John Nash of Nobel Laureate fame invented some very advanced cryptology and he was a schizophrenic. So much that the NSA even took notice.

It's possible.

about nothing said...

But how does it reflect on Gary's findings, even if Jim did have an undiagnosed illness? Just wondering. He has claimed he has cracked the code regardless of anyone's state of mind or the where's and how's it may or may not have been received. It would not really matter if it was 1980 or 2000, Gary is adamant his findings demonstrate Jim had no hand in any of this and has information which he considers useful, and of course it does not matter to him whether or not I saw Jim write binary code or not, none of it matters.

about nothing said...

But I will say it again. Jim having dreams of 23.5 and this leading to Gary and his work re 23.5 well its my opinion it does require further examination of what was/is really going on here, whatever that turns out to be?

Gary Osborn said...

"About Nothing,"
Not entirely true - some of the statements in your prior post. Again, jumping to conclusions.

about nothing said...

Jumping to conclusions about what Gary, you have said some time back you have cracked the code, you have also said many times that it does not matter re this or that and its about your findings, the rest can be looked into AFTER the release of your findings or something to this effect. And I said, Jim having dreams of 23.5 and then this leads to you who just happens to be involved with all things 23.5. Well it needs closer examination to see what in fact may be going on here in the terms of this alleged dreaming and so on.

Gary Osborn said...

I am not saying none of it matters. I did say that I would leave this kind of thing to other investigative researchers.
What . . . do you want me to do that too?

about nothing said...

That's what am meaning Gary, because it is so unusual, its not quite normal. Am not meaning you must do it.

Brian Bell said...

Gary -

As things go in Ufology (or time travel etc.) it's always best to disclose as you go rather than hide things until you feel ready.

Timing is always an issue but by and large stating you have something but will release it when the time is ready (indefinite references and years going by) actually diminishes credibility. Sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

By the time you're ready chances are people will not be interested or take notice no matter how significant you feel it is personally. They will have dismissed it as yet one more bogus claim from a huckster. Ufology is filled with that kind so bear this in mind.

Transparency is better than secrecy.

about nothing said...

"Transparency is better than secrecy" you say Brian. Agreed. I note Jim has announced his pending new book with Gary Osborn, the "first" definitive book on the binary due out in Dec 2016.

Paul Young said...

Errr Brian. I doubt Penniston is mentally ill. I've no doubt, either, that what he experienced back in 1980 did happen to him as he described it.
It's the stuff he has come up with to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the event that makes me think that he's simply trying to keep media interest in him alive.

Zoamchomsky! I'm still trying to figure out why you believe Halt stage-managed the whole Rendlesham thing, AND how he achieved it.
If you're right, (as you undoubtedly aren't) then Siegfried and Roy should make Halt a partner.

Gary Osborn said...

Hi Brian,

Thanks. I agree with you on that. I think I said more than I intended to say on the previous blog. My initial intention with my first post was just to say that there is more to the code than people realise or give it credit for and to just make it clear from my perspective that Jim had no hand in creating the code.
Yes transparency is always better than secrecy - I agree. It was also not my intention to keep my findings secret. In fact, my initial findings were going to go into the book authored by Nick Pope but was left out to keep things simple as it was decided that the book should just focus on the RFI events and the people involved. It was then decided that I carry on with my analysis of the code, as I was discovering something new almost every day. Since then many other things have been discovered and so it would have been premature to have released the initial findings in April 2014 with the publication of 'Encounter at Rendlesham.'
Yes, human nature being what it is I was already aware of the points you raise, and so as for any number of people being interested, that doesn't really concern me. I'm not in this for attention or for money. To date, I have never earned anything from it. I was not funded to do this work which has taken almost 5 years now. I was asked to do a job which I enjoyed doing as I found that the results gave me a better understanding of the things I was already researching before my involvement on the code. Now that work is completed.
Now only yesterday it was announced that the findings will at last be made public.

Gary Osborn said...

Paul, initially Jim did not want the code to be made public. He has stated this many times in Skype discussions I had with him and since 2011 and I have no reason to disbelieve him. Over the years, he has been reluctant at times to even be involved with the code.

about nothing said...

But he also told Ronnie Dugdale that the binary was only meant for certain people , that point was raised on the Angelina show and to Jim directly about that. Then the book happened and it was suddenly for mankind. Worst of it Ronnie presented him with some very serious research which was not available to the public re the alleged Hy Brazil . When Ronnie presented the data to Jim, Jim responded that he already knew. Technically he could not have known. Then after when people where asking questions , Ronnie included they where banned and removed. Even Philip Mantel could not raise proper questions with Jim in relation to the landing gear and it goes on. Hopefully he will address all those things?

zoamchomsky said...

Hey Paul;

As I've explained in summary already what's laid out in detail by Ian Ridpath:

The first night was a typical series of "UFO" misperceptions with the lighthouse beacon being the final and major ambiguous visual stimulus;

and the second night was simply Halt's recreation of the first night enhanced by deliberately manufactured "evidence"--the definition of hoax.

Halt did it all in plain sight, during, immediately after, weeks later, months later when the story broke in a trashy tabloid, and to this day.

Manufactured "evidence" was followed by continuous enhancement and equivocation.

Now JP is manufacturing telepathically received binary code from the future, as if this flying-saucer fairy tale hoaxed up with phony "evidence" wasn't silly enough.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

"Errr Brian. I doubt Penniston is mentally ill. I've no doubt, either, that what he experienced back in 1980 did happen to him as he described it."

Unless he's been evaluated you're just guessing. The same kind of guessing that goes hand in hand with ironclad belief in alien visitations that over the last 60 years have born out no physical evidence of such events.

It's typical for ETers to deny mainstream science and medical approaches to evaluating claims because frankly it's too dangerous. It may reveal something other than ET visitation and believers can't have that nor can they tolerate inconvenient facts that muddle up their explanation.

For the record, about 1 in 4 people you meet every day have a mental disorder, in fact usually two at once.

"Published studies report that about 25 percent of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50 percent of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime. (CDC)"

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/data-behavioral-health.aspx

Now tell me again the guy couldn't possibly have a mental disorder and show some proof of it when you say it.

about nothing said...

I am not sure if others have seen the latest yet but this is the latest on the new book. It seems another definitive one? It also seems it wont be completed until 2016 so it seems rather premature I think? On the other hand I suppose the marketing of books goes like this??

Quote.There is no doubt the Rendlesham Forest Incident is quite possibly the ‘game changer’ in terms of the UFO phenomenon. After two and half years of being off-the-radar, so to speak, and after a lot of hard work, The Rendlesham Forest Research Team (RFRT) has successfully completed its findings.

Gary Osborn and Jim Penniston have decided to write the definitive book on the Rendlesham Forest Incident and the binary code. The research has determined that the initial translation of the binary code was only the beginning....

To put it simply, there is another code within the code, and one which produces a whole new level of information. Now that the work is complete, the findings will at last be made public.

In this first ‘tell-all’ book on the code, the initial results of the binary research will be written by the ‘RFRT Team Chief,’ Gary Osborn – a published author in his own right. Sgt Jim Penniston, the Senior USAF Security Responder on the night that started the three-day event, will detail what happened on the first ‘contact night’ and how the binary message was received.

Jim will also delve further into the ‘after story,’ starting 72 hours after the event, running from December 1980 to present. This will cover all aspects of the ‘cover story’ given by the USAF, and how the cover story was executed. This part will also deal with all aspects regarding the people who have helped execute the ‘cover story’ – the false narrative which was put out as a containment action. More importantly, the ‘after story’ will also include the government agencies still involved with Rendlesham.
No one will be spared in the telling of this definitive book on Rendlesham. The people deserve the truth, and this is the reason for writing it. Every effort will ensure the public hearing of this account, and it will be done responsibly and thoroughly.

The book will be entitled, ‘The Rendlesham Code,’ (working title), by Gary Osborn and Jim Penniston.
With the extensive amount of information and the monumental task of writing a book covering all of these revelations, we are hoping to have it published by our target date of December 2016.
We will keep you updated with our progress.

Brian Bell said...

@ about nothing

I think what Gary is saying is that JP is simply a vessel or communications device of some kind - like a reciever - and that he may not be fully aware of that so seemingly does odd flip flops in testimony etc. Gary is studying the code but not the man.

Maybe Gary can clarify.

about nothing said...

@ Brian, re your comments re mental illness. There was discussion re this on the other page of course. I could say some things, but I cannot do that on a public page in depth. I have already said that I had tried to get some assistance when I was with Jim when there was some very unusual activities taking place. I contacted another person to see if they could recommend someone to assist at the time. This in no ways mean Jim had a mental illness, I am simply saying there was some very difficult things taking place with Jim which certainly mimicked some of the things you describe. However there well may be other explanations and maybe the new book will cover all of that. I simply do not know, Gary has not said, he seems to be concentrating on the message from the codes and not any of the activities I was privy to.

about nothing said...

Sorry Brian I posted before I noticed your comment. Yes, I think that would be correct in relation to Gary and his research.

Gary Osborn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Osborn said...

Sorry, but I am wasting my time on here. Brian, another time - suffice to say that yes, when I ruled out that Jim had any hand in creating the code, I thought it best to concentrate on that instead and leave the "he said, she said" gossip to others. So when you say I studied the code but not the man: I am certainly not naive - i.e., moving around with blinkers on. I note everything that goes on with the people in the RFI. I am also a fairly good judge of character, have an excellent built in BS antennae, and very capable of assessing if someone is lying or not. In my view, Jim is saner than a lot of my friends and perhaps saner than most of the people who voice their own biased opinions, views and beliefs as 'facts' on these blogs.
The thing is no one can 'disprove' the RFI happened as claimed by the witnesses. People can only 'disapprove.'

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said..."Now tell me again the guy couldn't possibly have a mental disorder and show some proof of it when you say it."

That's a rather convoluted argument.
Are we supposed to go around expecting everyone we meet to be barking mad...unless they have a certificate proving otherwise?
Incidently Brian...Have you got a mental disorder? And don't just say "NO"! I want you to show me some proof!

(catch my drift?)



zoamchomsky said..."The first night was a typical series of "UFO" misperceptions with the lighthouse beacon being the final and major ambiguous visual stimulus..."


Like I said, as soon as you mentioned Ridpath, I knew I was going to have a good old giggle with this.


I like how these rocket boosters and meteors on the 1st night (that you talked about a few posts back) were able to navigate through dense forestry...land for 30 odd minutes and then take-off again... flying out toward the English Channel!


zoamchomsky said..."and the second night was simply Halt's recreation of the first night enhanced by deliberately manufactured "evidence"--the definition of hoax.

Halt did it all in plain sight, during, immediately after, weeks later, months later when the story broke in a trashy tabloid, and to this day."

Wouldn't you think a deputy base commander of a nuclear base might have more things to occupy his time than to invent stunts like this?

I presume you think he was on a mission to get himself busted from "Lieutenant Colonel" to "Mop Ladies Assistant"!

Besides the obvious problem...ie..."what's the motivation?", he would need too many other people to be in on the act.

Sorry,zoamchomsky old boy, it's a non-starter. (funny though!)



zoamchomsky said,... "Now JP is manufacturing telepathically received binary code from the future,..."

On this particular point, you won't get an argument from me. However I will read Gary Osborn's final report on this subject with interest.

KRandle said...

Brian -

It doesn't work that way. Do you have any evidence of mental illness and before you suggest seeing a UFO is a symptom, I say you'd better reevaluate. Besides there are many mental illnesses that are not debilitating such as a fear of snakes or spiders or high places.

If you lump everyone who has reported a UFO, reported strange activities associated with a UFO, or those who believe they had had some sort of communication with a UFO as mentally ill, then you would have to treat a lot more people... which if you're a mental health professional, that might not be a bad thing. But before this gets out of hand with another of your distractions, if you have no evidence that Jim Penniston is mentally ill, I ask you to keep that opinion to yourself...

And as they say, do you have any evidence that you are not mentally ill?

Brian Bell said...

Kevin -

Don't be foolish. I never said EVERYONE who sees a UFO (or claims to see one) has a mental illness. That was YOU who intentionally took my point well out of the context of the discussion about Penniston's POST sighting log of binary code writing. My comment is specifically about Penniston which is rather blatantly obvious.

Stop twisting my comments in an attempt to make them sound ridiculous. I don't have any burden of proof concerning Penniston's health. The people who claim beings from the future (or aliens) sent him this message have that burden.

For you to dismiss the need to assess his mental health demonstrates a glaring gap in your methodology with this case. You reject proven medical science in favor of your own bias. No wonder ufology is doomed.

And yes, I along with others can certainly prove we have no mental illness simply from our medical histories and a physician's certification that none is present. Can you?

But here you are saying with sacrasim that I have mental illness for suggesting Penniston's condition should be assessed to rule it out. And you say you use science as a method in your research? Humm....

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

You really need to get a grip on reality. You continuously taught that your belief in aliens and visitors from the future is the cause of people's claims to seeing things inexplicable while you reject all prosaic possibilities.

Maybe you should go to a shrink and tell them you believe aliens have been visiting the earth for eons but you have absolutely no proof of it whatsoever but you know you're right because you just know you're right. See what the shrink tells you.

But of course you won't because science has to be rejected in UFO cases since it points to discrepancies and problems with your beliefs which you choose not to address because once again, you just know you're right.

Paul Young said...

@ Brian Bell...

I don't believe "visitors from the future" have anything to do with the RFI. To my knowledge, only Penniston has ever speculated that.

As for "prosaic possibilities"...I'm waiting for you to give me one!

Hopefully you can improve on zoamchomsky's claim that the thing that navigated through the forest, landed, took-off, then came back a couple of nights later for another look around was a meteor (chuckle...I'm sorry, but it's just too funny.)

As for my "shrink"...I've never needed one (as of yet)...but if I did, then he/she might very well believe in alien visitation too.
John Mack was a Rolls Royce in the world of the shrink, and he believed in the ETH.

Shrinks, Astronauts, Politicians, Admirals, Pilots...plenty of professional people appear to believe in the ETH.

I expect some unemployed people, like yourself, (I'm presuming you don't work, considering the amount of time you devote to blogs dedicated to a subject you don't believe in) ... believe in the ETH too.

Us ETHers come from all walks of life, my dear fellow!

:-)

about nothing said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
about nothing said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
about nothing said...

I can not understand your reasoning Kevin and am rather surprised. No one has accused anyone of having a mental illness and certainly not Brian, he simply pointed out what he did and in part I tend to agree. At the end of the day as we can see once again there is a pending book in the making. I have dealt closely with Gary having been the person who thought would be able to assist Jim at the time. I do also have a huge amount of information regarding the binary code alone also, not to mention my close past association with Jim and things I know there. One must not forget, we are dealing with a person with claimed messages, imparted into his mind from a touched space ship and this is now been presented to the public at a cost. That information is not free of charge or certainly wont be. Furthermore all of this was a direct result of claimed dreams. And I will repeat this. Jim was having dreams of 23.5 of which Jim told me about, where I just happened to of been friends with Gary who just happened to be working on 23.5 . It does not take rocket science to consider just that alone is very unusual and not quite normal . Otherwise there are tons of cosmic messages out there and many peddling their gumbo, folks have a right to ensure that these folks are of a sound mind, instead of buying any old hocus pocus out there, surely there has to be some evaluations somewhere in all this ufo muddle. Otherwise onward it all goes and clearly round in circles.

Paul Young said...

about nothing said..."One must not forget, we are dealing with a person with claimed messages, imparted into his mind from a touched space ship and this is now been presented to the public at a cost. That information is not free of charge or certainly wont be."


Ahhh, right! Now we're getting to the bones of it all.
Jim Penniston got his "binary information" from the craft for free...but now wants to pass on this information "to the public at a cost".
If he got this supposed "info" for free, then why can't he tell the public...for free? (And why didn't he tell us, freely, 30 years ago?)

Like I said earlier in this thread. From being an important witness to the RFI, he is now doing nothing but damage the case.

Gary Osborn said...

"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions."
-- Leonardo da Vinci

KRandle said...

All -

Brian Bell wrote: "I think Penniston is a good case of undiagnosed mental illness along the lines of schizophrenia."

That seems to me to be someone accusing someone of having a mental illness. I want to stop that nonsense now... and I attempted to stop an argument about his discussion of the sighting as a sign of mental illness. I didn't want to get into a long discussion that suggests that if you report a UFO there is something wrong with you because I could see the conversation entering that arena.

However, it seems that Brian, who is quick to accuse people of all manner of things (such as I know no one who has been diagnosed with PTSD) will then retreat to word games to prove that he didn't say that. My extension of the argument might not have been understood, but the point was that seeing a UFO, reporting it on the ground, or telling of the consequences of a close approach do not a mental illness make.

But you see he again twists my words. Heviews them through his prism of debunkery. I said nothing about dismissing a need to evaluate mental health, I attempted to dismiss the automatic claim of mental disease from the mere reporting of a UFO... a subtle difference.

And no, I can't prove my mental health but find it questioned simply because I'm a Vietnam Veteran...

Anyway, I close the discussion of the mental health of Jim Penniston at this point...

And, all, I am sick and tired of the postings descending into these hostile arguments. Have something positive to say, fine... have an argument suggesting that the ET explanation is in error, fine, but keep the language civil... why is that so difficult?

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

Yes plenty of people from all walks of life believe in ET, but unfortunately with no substantial evidence. Testimony? Yes, but that isn't something that can be evaluated under a microscope per se.

Equally people from centuries ago believed in fairies, sprites, pixies, dragons, nomes, mermaids, and other fantastic creatures. Again based on nothing but their own testimony.

So believe what you like. But don't be surprised when people unlike yourself claim belief in such things is not proof they actually exist.

Paul Young said...

If testimony isn't used as evidence, then our whole judicial system would crash.
I don't understand why testimony that could have people locked up for life(or in your country, executed) isn't considered good enough when people with sound reputations, testify to seeing stuff like that which was reported by air force staff at Rendlesham.

Now then, where are these "prosaic possibilities" for the RFI ?

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

In my opinion we are talking about something different.

Human courts deal with laws being broken. The testimony there can be used to convict someone of a crime with or without physical evidence.

Generally speaking there must be more than one credible witness whose collective stories must be convincing enough to an independent jury.

When attempting to prove highly intelligent extraterrestrial life is visiting earth with advanced technology beyond our comprehension, we are talking about science not the legal system.

Science requires physical evidence that can be observed, examined, tested, evaluated, and assessed.

The ETH cannot be proven as a scientific fact by witness testimony alone.

If that were the case, we would only need 2-3 witnesses to claim they saw Nessie and we could then conclude their testimony was good enough to add the monster into our scientific zoological framework.

So despite famous ufologists such as Friedman, Carey, Schmitt and others claiming witness testimony is sufficient to prove alien life certainly exists, that claim is bogus and used deceptively to convince others that courts would rule in their favor.

In this case your jury is science not a bunch of people who think witness testimony is all it takes.

Tracy Farley said...

@ Paul you say, Ahhh, right! Now we're getting to the bones of it all.
Jim Penniston got his "binary information" from the craft for free...but now wants to pass on this information "to the public at a cost".
If he got this supposed "info" for free, then why can't he tell the public...for free? (And why didn't he tell us, freely, 30 years ago?)

Yes, but it could be argued that if Jim did not know the meaning of the alleged transmission (debateable) then anyone who offered assistance would either do so free of charge or with the expectations of numeration at some point. In Gary's case whilst he has pointed out he has received no money for his efforts and it is not his motives, he certainly has expressed some things to me, part of which includes he does not want to put out his work for nothing. Remember his occupation is that of a writer and there has been almost five years of work involved and that means a lot of hours put into his research. I do believe there was discussion about a web site where Gary's research was going to possibly be uploaded in sections for a fee, but we now see a book/s. There is absolutely no doubts whatsoever that cosmic channelled messages always but always get presented at a fee. It does not matter whether this is via tea leaves or into the mind there is always a price tag to these cosmic offerings. What I personally would of liked to have seen, is a complete re-evaluation of the Rendlesham case and investigations taking place much like a public enquiry into each and every known witness, along with serious scrutiny re the binary codes. What is happening so far is a series of books over the years presented by independent folks here and there and the witnesses in present times now conducting their own research and with that comes serious control too of which there is. An investigation body made up of various people in their respective fields not affiliated with the witnesses would not go amiss. This is a complex case and the witnesses' are still living. I also believe the public cannot be stringent enough when it comes to any type of claimed messages they are two a penny and most is charelton type stuff. @ Brian your above is well pointed out.

Paul Young said...

@ Tracy...

Point taken that Gary Osborn shouldn't be expected to take on the research and then write a book for nothing....However, I still can't figure any good reason for Penniston to sit on this binary stuff for so long.
I'm pretty sure he could have photocopied the pages from his notebook where he wrote out this binary, 30 odd years ago, and sent them to some up and coming Alan Turing at UMIST, or somewhere. They'd love a challenge like that...and would have studied it for free.

That's IF these extra pages of binary was written out 30 odd years ago, of course.

Some people, (less trusting than me) might believe that this binary was NOT jotted out 30 odd years ago...but in time to celebrate the 30th anniversary. (I wonder what new revelations Jimbo has got lined up for the 40th anniversary in 2020???)


@ Brian... I'm still awaiting your "prosaic" explanation, pal.
As you might have guessed, I'm not wearing zoamchomsky and Ridpath's "re-entering russian rocket" and "meteor" nonsense. See if you can come up with something funnier! (hard task, I know!)

Tracy Farley said...

Hi Paul

I was just mentioning how the Gary situation could be reasoned or anyone else offering assistance, it in no way, reflects my own personal views.

We must not forget. Jim has claimed he had no understanding of binary codes, it meant nothing to him, he simple retired his notebook away or claimed of.
The binary code could have been created at any time. The first mention of the codes as we know was via LMH who wrote about them and Jims hypnosis session in the 90s.

As said earlier there is no evidence re receiving binary codes in the way Jim claims or when Jim claims that is unsubstantiated. However it does not mean he did not either . Only time will tell where all this will go I guess end of the day:/

Gary Osborn said...

Paul Young said . . . "Point taken that Gary Osborn shouldn't be expected to take on the research and then write a book for nothing."

Three books actually - a trilogy. Amongst other things, I am a self-employed writer, because that and my research is one of the things I love doing and do well. I have never made anything substantial from it since my first book in 2005. I guess the total I have earned from all three books I have already had published is less than what the average worker would earn in a year.
Most writers - especially in the non-fiction genre - have to keep their day job, as the royalties from such books and every six months, in general, is mere 'pin money.' THAT fact has to be considered when people begin shooting their mouth off about doing this all for money. A non-fiction writer is extremely lucky to have a best-seller, and one has to be realistic. I do what I do because I am fascinated with the topics of my research and I have never been naive about making a great deal of money from it. That's just the reality.
Now, as for Jim, he says he has not made any money from this, and that actually he has given the money he has earned from his appearances and conferences to charity. People are clearly not aware of his own values.

Brian Bell said...

@ Paul

I don't think it necessarily a problem one way or the other if Gary writes a series of books or goes on a speaking circuit. I may not agree with his final conclusions but he wouldn't be the first to publish research as a means of recouping costs of doing his own research. I'm not of the opinion people with differing views should be shut down, on the contrary the more info the greater the opportunity to debate the issues.

My only gripe is that too many who publish books on this subject think too much of themselves displaying a rather annoying habit of elevating their viewpoints above others having closed their minds to anything but their own conclusions. Ufology is rife with that sort of thing. Pure arrogance.

And Paul since you believe Rendelsham was indeed a real ufological event, you'ld be better off just accepting the binary code thing is real or at least significant to the case.

As far as prosaic explanations go, there are plenty of people who accept Ian Ridpath's study of the incident. Of course I can use Nitram's old trick of asking whether or not you have visited the site, spoken to the witnesses, and field tested various hypothesis to confirm your opinion. And if not then your conclusion remains invalid opposite those who have - like Ridpath - who has done his homework.

Even Jenny Randles retracted her die hard beliefs when she reportedly stated, "Whilst some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen in Rendlesham Forest. We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

Gary Osborn said...

Brain said . . . "My only gripe is that too many who publish books on this subject think too much of themselves displaying a rather annoying habit of elevating their viewpoints above others having closed their minds to anything but their own conclusions. Ufology is rife with that sort of thing. Pure arrogance."

I agree.

Paul Young said...

Brian Bell said...
"And Paul since you believe Rendlesham was indeed a real ufological event, you'ld be better off just accepting the binary code thing is real or at least significant to the case."

Better off! Errr...OK, If you say so!
I might have been more persuaded to accept it if it didn't seem to materialise years after the event. I consider it to be additional, "Johnny-come-lately" noise, much like that injected into the Roswell case by Kaufmann. (But that's just me!)
Saying that, I'll be reading Gary's take on it all with great interest.

Brian Bell said...

@ Gary

Was the issue of the origin coordinates ever resolved? Southern England or Atlantic?

Just curious.

Gary Osborn said...

It has to be the point off the west coast of Ireland in the Atlantic Brian - which of course is the same location as the submerged island of Hy Brasil as presented in old portolan/ cartographic maps since 1330.
I can also see why the coordinates would also point to Woodbridge, if we change the decimal point and change the 'W' to 'E' instead. But really, if we reject the Atlantic coordinates and opt for the coordinates of Woodbridge instead, the additional information would not emerge. In any case, the Atlantic coordinates are given twice in the pages of the code and again the code specifically gives the letter 'W' for west, not 'E' for east.

Tracy Farley said...

This is all nice, but it does not get away from the questions people ask which in fact if the answers are as simple as mentioned earlier, then Jim would have put to rest all the areas people have questioned and more. He would not allow for people to waste so much of their precious time on this and never ending debates when the simple answers could have been told to at least put to rest peoples thoughts etc.

Here is an example of what people think. Surely it does not require a book 4 years later for Jim to iron out those discrepancies? Even you Gary seemingly do not know the answers to them either?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ufoupdates/permalink/10153093697621790/


Gary Osborn said...

:-))))))))))))))))

Clever - your last line.
You know that I know there is a perfectly logical answer to this. I have addressed this before. There is a saying . . .

"The strongest of all warriors are these two . . . Time and Patience." :-)

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Osborn said...

Having been in Skype discussions with Jim almost every weekend for over a year and half between 2011 and 2013, and recently every week - some for over 3 hours in one sitting - I understand Jim, having noted the way he expresses himself when talking about his experiences and can see what has happened here.

These seemingly 'contradictory statements' are not evidence of Jim lying. To me, the contradictions indicate an internal conflict. It's like the right side of his brain (which is related to the subconscious), subliminally knew what the code contained, but that the left side of his brain - the predominant judge, filter and suppressor of information (especially what emerges from the right brain)- thought it was all "gibberish" anyway, hence the contradictions which reflects the conflict in Penniston about the code and why, initially, he didn't want to release any information about it.

In any case, these contradictory statements can happen to anyone who is not confident about being interviewed and questioned in public - as there is also the pressure of intense filtering going on in the mind, in which one wishes to tell all, but is also deciding whether he or she should say or not say certain things that could be ridiculed by others; be misinterpreted; taken out of context, or land him or her in trouble.
Saying that he knew at a deep level what the code said, is something that his right brain had known, processed and understood, and of course this would appeal to the "right brainers" in his listening audience who wouldn't have a problem with it.
But then when a certain question, perspective or context in the discussion presented itself he then says that he thought the code was "gibberish anyway," this is his more critical left brain expressing itself, which of course would align him, so he thinks, with the more sceptical-minded amongst his listeners - i.e., the "left brainers" - showing them that he also adopts a common sense view of everything and is also trying to rationalise it.

Gary Osborn said...

There are also other things to consider . . .

Bruce Arnold, one of the more intelligent posters I have read on a UFO site I visited recently - although he isn't correct about everything, especially what he says about the coordinates of Hy Brasil - says that in his opinion Jim Penniston is struggling intellectually, and that Penniston has several screen memories imposed by the AFOSI agents who interrogated him. Bruce says Jim Penniston confuses these memories and that his pauses and stutters when interviewed indicate this.
Perhaps . . . although Jim would not agree that he was messed with to that extent, and says he has total conscious recall of what happened, both during the incident and in the days following.

My own view is that naturally Jim is a sceptical, down-to-earth, no nonsense kind of person - as most military people are - and that what happened to him that night upset his mind so much to the point that it completely turned his world upside down. And so someone like him going through this weird, unexpected, unexplained event/experience, must have been traumatic.
He has tried to rationalise this experience and the after-effect experiences ever since, which may also include any psychic impressions he has had about the code - i.e., knowing what it said subjectively, but trying at the same time to dismiss it as "gibberish."
Although he is being honest about his experiences, he also doesn't want to be viewed or judged as someone who has lost his mind, and that is understandable when you consider the kind of man he was before the incident and still is to some extent - although there can be no doubt that the experience that night had changed him.

In any case, it is typical of the predominantly 'left-hemispheral activity' people among us who are far too skeptical, critical, ignorant and insensitive to consider these psychological nuances and factors, and will quickly jump all over this and conclude that Penniston is a liar and has falsified his story about the code and therefore it's not worth bothering with.

And anyone who has a problem with the subject of the left brain, right brain dualism or dichotomy, I suggest you read the work of psychiatrist, doctor, writer, and former Oxford literary scholar. Ian McGilchrist.

Tracy Farley said...

I posted the above link as the AJ report and other questions have been the main
topic of folks questions . Right or wrong opinions. I was with Jim during that AJ interview which was also a period of time where some pretty serious activities where taking place.
So to sum it up, your reasoning to the discrepancies are as you describe above, but this of course is your opinion and not necessarily the correct one but one to consider.

zoamchomsky said...

Paul says, "I'm still awaiting your "prosaic" explanation, pal."

What Ian, others and I have shown is that the facts of the RendleSham are completely mundane and well-trodden "UFO" ground. Facts you choose to ignore, like both Burroughs and Cabansag stating flatly that the light they were chasing through the forest turned out to be nothing but the lighthouse beacon. There's no denying that, Paul, but you would rather believe the flying-saucer fairy tale that's been created about it.

And so you demand an explanation for the fairy tale--not the misperceptions and outright hoaxing on which it is built. Much the same as with all other "UFO" fairy tales, I suppose. "You'll believe in anything if you'll believe in all this!" (g)

So guffaw all you like. The base commander in radio contact with Halt said that he didn't see anything like the excited--or hoaxing--Halt said he was seeing. And the interval of Halt's imaginary flashing "UFO" and its position on the horizon matched the lighthouse beacon exactly. Policemen investigated the "plane crash in the woods" report TWICE that morning and found nothing unusual. Responsible base personnel said the two nights of wild goose chasing through the woods and fields --off base and on private property--towards the lighthouse were simply holiday merry-making and pranksterism, and wholly irresponsible behavior for adults.

1980 was the same year as the Cash-Landrum hoax and it and the RendleSham share many of the same "UFO" narrative tropes accumulated by our popular culture at that time. It's not that American soldiers (or Betty and Vickie) experienced a brush with something out of this world--that's what all the very mundane evidence about both cases AND their real-world context shows--it's that they shared the culturally supplied elements of a common myth about this world, the "UFO" delusion.

Best wishes, Paul!

Steve Sawyer said...

Just out of some mild curiosity, "Zoam Chomsky" (Dr. Aaron Sakulich), since you claim all UFOs are either mistaken identifications, hoaxes, delusions, or more generally based in what you refer to as the "null hypothesis" and the psychosocial theory, how do you explain the multiplicity of historic cases where not only credible multiple-witnesses in some incidents have observed truly anomalous UFOs (which of course has resulted in anecdotal reports), but that also in many of these cases parallel radar tracking from both the air and ground, simultaneously, of what the witnesses report having observed tallies closely with the witnesses' observations as to speed, direction, elevation, size, and motion of such UFOs, or more correctly, UAPs?

Temperature inversions? Faulty radar? Crossed signals? That sensor recordings and radar devices also suffer from the psychosocial hypothesis? I'm really quite curious how you explain those kinds of cases. Such as the Washington Nationals in 1952, or the RB-47 case of 1957, for example?

Or, do you really believe there can be no such thing as any form of possible advanced non-human intelligence that may on rare occasion appear in the form of observed UAP with such characteristics and supporting sensor detection?

If so, on what basis do you rule out such possibilities? It's a mighty big universe, after all.

Gary Osborn said...

So, now we have a name for "Zoamchomsky": Dr. Aaron Sakulich, who believes the pyramids of Giza were built from synthetically-manufactured, cement blocks.

http://archived.materials.drexel.edu/Students/Grad/Profiles/aaron_sakulick.aspx

http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

zoamchomsky said...

Steve; How many radar systems have made "UFO" reports?

None. Fallible human beings interpret images on the displays of fallible radar systems. The suggestion that such interpretations could be evidence for an extraordinary reality of any kind is a poor argument.

And how many times have DCA 1952 and RB-47 been debunked? DCA 1952 is nothing but a case of inexperienced operators working with new technology and temperature inversions over water; and RB-47 was a complicated series of misperceptions including a meteor, an airliner and the AF's own radar systems.

Think about it, Steve: If there was anything to these or any one of the thousands of "UFO" cases accumulated over the past century would there not have been some consequence? What were the consequences of DCA 1952? A "UFO" follows an AF jet around over Gulf states for two hours during the Cold War and nothing becomes of it. What are the consequences? There are none. What should that tell a reasonable person?

Things said to exist in the world have presence, persistence, substance, and consequence. So what does the complete lack of consequences indicate about the ambiguous visual stimuli--and radar returns--that are the subjects of "UFO" reports?

Yes, it's a big Galaxy--it's hardly necessary to appeal to the entire Universe--and stars are very very far apart. And we're the only example of intelligent life we know

Let me be like the great Enrico Fermi and ask, "Where are they?" That's what he asked seriously after hearing of "flying saucer" reports and laughingly dismissing them as nonsense.

Simply because intelligent life might exist elsewhere doesn't mean they're visiting planet Earth. We may be the first and only in our entire galaxy. The only other intelligent life might have lived and died billions of years ago in the Andromeda galaxy. Some astronomers put the possibility for anything like ourselves at exactly one per galaxy in its entire lifetime.

I'm of the astronomically informed opinion that not only is intelligent life extremely rare but that interstellar travel is implausible in the extreme. Space is filled with dark and exotic objects and deadly radiations; and to travel great distances would require great time or speeds at which interstellar grains, even molecules become barriers.

So, yes, they might exist and most probably do, did or will somewhere in our Local Group at sometime in countless cosmic eons--but merely existing doesn't mean they're visiting Earth.

And given the long list of very real astronomical, biological, sociological and technology prohibitions against that probability, the chance we will ever meet is next to zero.

Brian Bell said...

The Ancient Pyramids of Egypt

Well, I believe I've read that theory before and it's certainly better than suggesting that somehow ancient aliens built the pyramids!

I think if you look back in time humans were far more advanced in their thinking than people today give them credit for. I'm not talking about advanced technology as much as intellect and problem solving. From a practical standpoint, it's very feasible the outer blocks were synthetically mixed then poured. I don't think that's necessarily an idea that wouldn't cross their minds or was beyond their ability. And if composition analysis indicates this it's hard to refute.

Regarding ancient aliens, once again a contributing factor of UFOlogy's overall decline has been the rise of ancient astronaut theories and the dumbing down of ancient humans and their abilities. For some people everything in the past was a result of alien engineering which is absolutely ridiculous.

Tracy Farley said...

Quote you Brian...I think if you look back in time humans were far more advanced in their thinking than people today give them credit for. end quote.

Now that is perhaps closer to the truth. :)

Gary Osborn said...

Hi Brian,

Actually I agree with you totally and I am not criticising this theory or these findings. In fact, what is presented in the links I posted I remember reading some time ago and I find it all very interesting.
I was just pointing out the irony here, because the Giza pyramids - specifically the Great Pyramid - has also been my focus of research since the late 90s, and is actually related to the code.
Below is the first of eight presentations revealing some of my own findings associated with the Great Pyramid of Giza (the links to the other seven pages are at the bottom of the page).

All the best,
Gary

http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/#/sacred-earth-moon-geometry/4589547450

Brian Bell said...

@ Gary

Thanks. Didn't know you had a focus on the pyramids. Cheers!

Tracy Farley said...

Jim also has a very keen interest in all things Egyptian. He spent a number of years in Germany where he frequented museums which housed all things Egyptian, seemingly he enjoyed that. I often wondered though if there was ever an influence somewhere along the line?

Gary Osborn said...

That's not anything significant. Many of us have a keen interest in ancient Egypt.

Tracy Farley said...

But, what is significant is that Jim had alleged dreams of 23.5 which is the very thing you are working on. Jim said he did not know you or your work, but you where on my FB page at the time of knowing Jim. So was Jim making it up, or was info imparted into his mind of 23.5 via dreams or some other method. Or is there something else to it all I have not thought about which could reason it all?

Brian Bell said...

@ Gary and Tracy

This may be unrelated, but do either of you recall a scientist who proposed a decade ago (or more) that there was some latitude/longitude correlation between pyramid type structures across the face of the planet? There was even a televised show about this which was rather well done. What he was attempting to demonstrate was that ancient civilizations had much greater contact with each other than we currently believe, which influenced a particular placement of pyramids geographically speaking. Do you recall anything like this?

Gary Osborn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Osborn said...

Hi Brian,
I think you are referring to the work of Carl P. Munck? Yes, what you are saying also applies to the seven coordinates from the binary code, in that an ancient connection between the cultures associated with the targeted locations is implied - but it goes much further than this. I am interested in this news story in The Washington Post from yesterday (see link below).
All I will say at this stage is that this is very timely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypt-detects-impressive-anomaly-in-giza-pyramids/2015/11/09/da1439e8-86f9-11e5-bd91-d385b244482f_story.html

Tracy Farley said...

@ Brian, no I don't recall anything top of my head :) So Gary what do you think is behind all this then? As someone/s had a hand in all things Jim and the binary.

Gary Osborn said...

We will just have to wait and see . . .

Tracy Farley said...

What we waiting for? Someone's, had a hand in it. Folks don't just go to bed dream of 23.5 and hey presto the next thing they team up with the person who writes about 23.5 and write a book. I wont go into all the rest.

james tankersley said...

the main reasons I believe that the strange craft that crashed in Roswell was an alien star or even interdimensional craft of some kind had to do with all the strange and total unusual description of the foil like debris and high strength of the material that clearly was not in existence then or even now to this very day. the further testimony of Jessie Marcel SR. in the 1978 episode of IN SEARCH OF and STANTON FRIEDMANS excellent 1979 UFO movie called UFOs ARE REAL proved to me that no kind of secret aircraft, missile or TOP SECRET balloon project could have been involved because this man was trained to know all about these programs and projects going on at the time this crash occurred.

Gary Osborn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gary Osborn said...

Addressed to Tracy Farley:

Yes, strange that isn't it?
And also, someone doesn't just "bump" into Nick Pope by chance in a pub back in 1997 (1997 being the same year Nick, Georgina Bruni and Jim Penniston had met up to discuss the Rendlesham Incident), and then afterwards he meets up several times with Nick at the same pub to discuss his own experiences which happened in 1993, with Jim Penniston then contacting that same person out of the blue some 13 years later to look at seven coordinates from a string of binary code he says he received on Boxing Day 1980 - Jim Penniston having had no knowledge of this guy's prior meeting with Nick Pope all those years ago, with Nick also never having said a thing to Jim Penniston about their prior meetings in 1997.
Understand?

Gary Osborn said...

All that happened in 1997 and long before I had seriously thought about becoming a writer or author. And I could give many other strange incidents from my own timeline of events leading up to my work on the code that were either directly or indirectly related to the work I have been doing these past 5 years.

Tracy Farley said...

Hi Gary. Yes that too there is so much to it all for certain. Just in passing, I dug out an old post of Johns, re Chuck De Caro, he said something re some new data (a while back) which could reason how Jim got the binary, according to Chuck? It also seems this Chuck person will be on Johns radio show too in the near future. Now that element would fall under "Electromagnetic Mind Control" so it seems??.

Tracy Farley said...

@ Gary has it been reasoned/explained yet why those three additional pages took one year to get to Joe for cipher etc? Those three pages contain "Eyes of your Eyes" and are of particular interest due to what I wrote to Col.Halt in July 2011. Why did they put 13 pages on their formal web site and when I saw it and told you, it was then changed quickly to 16 pages as it had suddenly been told that was the "official" count. Surely that has been explained by now? especially if there is a simple answer to it all?

Gary Osborn said...

Yes, it has been simply explained to me, along with a lot of other issues you have been bringing up since Jim ended your relationship with him in 2011, and all these will be addressed.

Tracy Farley said...

I sincerely look forward to what Jim does tell you Gary ,most especially re what was occurring as it was disturbing and a full explanation as to the financial backer situation he told you about re Sacha Christie and I which was false amongst other things. Yep many things to cover Gary, so this will prove interesting indeed.

Tracy Farley said...

Actually correction on that bit, it was Lori he told re that element, you just know about some of that. Otherwise as said, it will be interesting to learn what Jim in fact does or has now told you and how it will correspond with all the things which "really" took place.

Gary Osborn said...

I am really not concerned with any of that. It is really none of my business. That is for Jim to address if and when.

Tracy Farley said...

Gary, I asked you re the binary code pages nothing more, you chose to mention other things and I responded.

Gary Osborn said...

Yes, that, and also other issues you have brought up about the binary, and all since then.

Tracy Farley said...

Right.....