I
reached out to Nick Redfern. I wanted to talk about his new book, Rendlesham
Forest UFO Conspiracy. You can listen to it here:
What
caught my attention was the information that suggested that what had been seen,
or what had happened, in the forest in December 1980, was not something
alien,
but had to do with scientific or military experimentation that had gone on in
the area for years. When I talked with John Burroughs several months ago, he
had said much the same thing and I believed that Nick and John might have
worked together to some extent on the book. Nick said that he had not interviewed
John, and given the confluence of their theories, I find this quite
interesting. You can listen to my interview with John Burroughs here:
 |
| Nick Redfern |
Although
we didn’t go into depth about it, Nick mentioned an attempt by Nazi Germany to
land soldiers in England in the war. According to Nick, that small landing
force had been wiped out, and if I understood it properly, he was suggesting that
some sort of experimental weapon or method had been used.
I
also asked him about push back from the UFO community because of this book, and
his earlier Body Snatchers in the Desert which supplied an alternative
to aliens in Roswell. I had found myself attacked for following the evidence
and publishing, with Russ Estes and Bill Cone, a book suggesting a more
terrestrial explanation for the majority of the abduction reports. Nick
suggested that many didn’t want to know the solution to a mystery. They preferred
the mystery, which, of course, I have observed in the past as well.
This
sort of leads to next week’s show. I’m going to talk with Robert Scheaffer
about the nature of evidence and how those on both sides of the UFO coin seem
to reject that evidence that doesn’t fit into their personal belief structures.
I suppose we could say the same thing applies throughout our world whether it has
to do with politics, history and interpersonal relations.
If
you have questions, let me know and I’ll try to get them asked. And remember,
if you have read any of my latest books, please think about writing a review
for Amazon. This helps spread the word, getting our (or in some cases, my)
point of view out. People do need to know about what happened in Roswell and
Socorro and how those at Project Blue Book manipulated the data.
11 comments:
No disrespect of Nick Redfern intended here when i say would not Jessie Marcel SR have known about a so called secret experiment going on since he was put in charge to investigate what came down near Corona New Mexico of July 1947? He to his dying day could not explain the strange wreckage he was picking up and you can tell by watching him talk during his interviews that he was dead serious and not at all joking about it at all! He was amazed by what he found and whatever it was that came down to earth he was sure it was not from earth, in fact he was put in that position to know that! Frank Kaufman was probably a disinformation agent who knew that an alien craft came down but was hired to muddy the waters which back then did not surprise me since the Air Force had to say something. In fact if you look at his description of the aliens he drew they look almost like the ones from the movie HANGER 18 which almost mirrored what happened in Roswell, but was fictional.Also let us not forget what Jessie Marcel JR said when he joined the military..he looked at all kinds of balloon junk,aircraft and missile wreckage and so on but was unable to find or see anything like the i beams with strange figures or writing or the metallic debris he saw in roswell.
Rumors, Rumors, Rumors … long on speculation, but not many new facts from Mr. Redfern in this interview re: Rendlesham Forest. Admittedly, I have not read his new book, but at one point he states: "I don't buy into all the stories." Well, Rendlesham Forest is a lot more, much more than a story. In fact, Nick Redfern acknowledges as much in Chapter 11 "The Rendlesham Affair" of his 1997 book A COVERT AFFAIR: The British Government's UFO Top Secrets Exposed
but with no reference to any Rendlesham Forest conspiracy therein. By its very subtitle, one would think that such a conspiracy would have been included (or at least mentioned) in the earlier work's chapter on this signature event. I do thank him for writing the 1997 book though, and also recommend it.
John
The reason why I didn't mention the experiment/conspiracy in my 1997 book (which is actually titled "A Covert Agenda" not "A Covert Affair,") is because when I wrote that book (a quarter of a century ago - it was written in 1995 and published in 1997) I was still a believer in the theory that Rendlesham involved UFOs. Over the years, my views have significantly changed.
Nick and John -
Let me point out here that I have received criticism about a book not being up to date and looks as if it was something that should have been written in the 1990s. One man, in a review of Case MJ-12 actually wrote in 2015 that there was nothing new in the book, though when it was written, there was a lot of new information in it. I suggested that he take a look at the copyright date before blaming me (or any other writer for that matter) of not publishing up to date information. That's one of the problems with Amazon...
Just thought I would mention it.
Jacques Vallee had hypothesized in the 80s that Rendelschem was a military experiment and, IMO, his argument was convincing. I don't see much new information being added now, but to each their own.
I am looking for a place to make some comments about the Ramey memo. If this isn't a good place, please tell me where I could do so.
I was reviewing the scans at the UTA library online site (https://library.uta.edu/roswell/ramey-memo) and noticed several things I deem unusual.
First off, reading the "DECIPHERING THE RAMEY MEMO" I see the actual photographic image was sent AWAY from the UTA. "the photo was sent to a national – level organization for digitizing and subsequent photo interpretation and analysis.3" Footnote 3 reads: "3 The organization that examined the memo was the National Photographic Interpretation Center, which is part of the CIA. "
Holy Toledo, Batman! You sent the photo to the CIA for analysis? Do you not know what they are capable of?
I believe the negative that went back to the UTA was not the original and was modified. Why?
Look closely at the image (R Scanpro 55B 800 dpi 2x.tif) particularly the "blank" line after "FORT WORTH, TEXA" where the line stops without the "S."
The line has been obscured. It was very professionally done, but it wasn't done perfectly. You can see the deleted area doesn't exactly match the color of the surrounding paper. Someone deliberately erased the line from the "S" in Texas to the end of the sentence.
I think this image can never be used to substantiate the recovery of the Roswell UFO, but it does allow one to realize something:
They went to a lot of trouble to hide that line. Why?
Nick: Your views re: Rendlesham Forest have significantly changed, but what has not changed is the truth of what happened there on the nights of 25-28 December 1980. In analysis after analysis, e.g., Bruni, Pope/Burroughs/Penniston, Halt/Hanson, Penniston/Osborn vol. I – none of these support the view of a human-centered conspiracy as capable of explaining the factual evidence surrounding the events in question.
P.S. I do apologize for getting the main title of your 1997 book wrong – in my zeal to be accurate as to the subtitle, I somehow miswrote the correct title of "A Covert Agenda", which again, is well worth reading.
John, you mention John Burroughs above to support the ET theory for Rendlesham.
I recommend you ask Kevin about John Burroughs' views on Rendlesham.
Kevin had John on his (Kevin's) show talking about the case. You may be surprised.
Nick: I mentioned John Burroughs because he is the co-author of "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" (2015), which per my recollection supports the ET theory re: Rendlesham Forest. I don’t have to ask Kevin about John Burroughs’ views on Rendlesham though, because I heard them discussed in both Kevin’s interviews with John and with yourself.
Now John Burroughs has every right to change his views re: Rendlesham Forest, as do you -- however, he (or even you for that matter) could state something different about Rendlesham Forest at any time – today, tomorrow, or next week … I cited to a past writing, which to me has more substance than an oral statement of view.
Perhaps John Burroughs has expressed a change of views re: Rendlesham Forest in writing somewhere – that I don’t know …?
In addition, it is my understanding from their book that neither Jim Penniston nor Gary Osborn support the ET theory re: Rendlesham Forest. Rather, they advocate a time traveler explanation – humans from the distant future circa 8100 (if memory serves). However, I do not believe this comports with your human (circa 1980) conspiracy view re: Rendlesham Forest.
Nick Redfern recounts in his Rendlesham book about the Flatwoods Monster, again. He brings up the Magician Maskleyne and cites a Rand report that describes the Flatwoods like monster that Maskleyne had created during WWII.
If you look at the Rand report, it references public sources of data and specifically a book written by Magician Maskelyne called "Magic-Top Secret". It is treated in the Rand report as truth. It has many anecdotes and photos and really leads you to believe he is telling the truth. But good luck trying to confirm any of the marvelous stories in it.
The funny thing is that in searching for a library that could provide a copy for me to read, I found that there were copies of his book in the US Army Military History Institute, the Defense Intelligence Agency library, Library of the Marine Corps, Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library, USAICoE Military Intelligence Library, US Army, Field Artillery School. So, maybe the government believes the stories.
But I DID find a copy to read.
To illustrate his claims, in one story from Chapter 2, he says he was in charge of setting up the illusion/camouflage of fake military personnel and hardware on the British shoreline, thus preventing German invasion in 1940! Anyone got proof on that one?
In Chapter 4, he describes inventing (and he shows photographs to prove it was built) a spotlight beam that was tested to show it can disorient pilots. Because of the pictures, it might have been built, but I have never heard it being used then or today. He says 21 such lights were built for the Suez Canal region. Later in the book (Chapter 22), he says the same devise was built to mount on tanks when the Allied Forces invaded the Continent. I never heard of this.
In Chapter 2 was another amazing pronouncement of having invented (and it was used) a "Red Cross" paint scheme to enhance its visibility (red on yellow instead of red and white) to prevent ships from being bombed by the Germans (and visa versa). This does not seem true.
Chapter 4 has him using camouflage to successfully "hide" Alexandria harbor by creating a fake city a little way off. So successful, he says the technique was exported to England to protect cities! Never heard of this either.
In Chapter 5 he describes in a believable story how he camouflaged a tank to look like a truck so well it fooled trained military from "a few feet away". This might be possible (well, maybe for 50 feet away).
In Chapter 7 he devises and tests on himself in front of witnesses a fire resisting paste which he tested by immersion into the flames of a burning hulk of an airplane. Sort of sounds believable, but I never have seen it since.
In Chapter 8 he somehow creates 258 foot long submarines to make the enemy think the Allies have sea power that isn't there. Also, they produced one fake battleship (out of cardboard, canvas), 700 feet long, placed on an old cruiser! Really?
I would definitely recommend the book if you can find it because it is amusing even if not true.
I would not take the Rand report as factual and indeed I doubt they did any fact checking of their source. Maskelyne either was either one of the greatest war heroes and saved thousands of lives or was a fictional writer. It is hard to say which without a lot of work.
Here is the excerpt of the scarecrow illusion taken from his book and repeated in the Rand report.
"... they used a device which was little more than a gigantic scarecrow, about twelve feet high, and able to stagger forward under its own power and emit frightful flashes and bangs. This
thing scared several Italian Sicilian villages appearing in the dawn thumping its deafening way down their streets with great electric blue sparks jumping from it ..."
The only similarity with the Flatwoods monster seems to be the height. Flatwoods did not stagger, emit bangs or frightfully flashed or sparked. Flatwoods "bounded", gave off gas, glowed. Also, Maskelyne offers no details on how it was made, so it was doubtful if it ever was.
Personally i believe the flatwoods monster was a creature from another planet since i feel that there all kinds of life throughout the universe and beyond, no doubt about that to me.Now proving it is next to impossible and naturally there will be people like this great magician who want to grab the spotlight and boldly claim i did that! when in fact they probably did nothing and it just clouds up the truth from being known, and i would not be surprised if a UFO COVERUP GROUP was behind it by the way,but i can not say i know that for sure,but i can say i suspect that concerning the way it was quickly hushed up!
Post a Comment