| View previous topic | View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| thecactus wrote: | | D B Sweeney wrote: | I've been there 3 times. Never saw a thing. Saw what the US personnel at the time might have saw. Bullshit IMO. And I've studied this case in detail.
DB |
What do you mean it is bullshit? I disagree. I don't think all the Air Force personnel who witnessed the craft and the beings were crazy or delusional, I just don't believe that. I think agentscott was right - the cynics did a good job on you DB  |
So you believe their stories without question - you accept them at face value?
DB |
|
|
... |
|
 Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not without question - but why would they lie or fabricate the story?
They reported after the incident they were debriefed and had 'things done to them' to confuse them etc... |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecactus wrote: | Not without question - but why would they lie or fabricate the story?
They reported after the incident they were debriefed and had 'things done to them' to confuse them etc... |
To sell books (Left at East Gate), to gain publicity for themselves and make a comfortable living on the UFO conference circuit?.
Maybe their experiences were genuine misperceptions such as the Orfordness Lighthouse etc, maybe they got carried away in a collective delusion fuelled by panic?.
At the end of the day it comes down to concrete evidence - rabbit scrapings, foresters markings on trees and an ambiguous audio recording filled with panic doesn't really do it for me.
Rendlesham is a major case that I've studied in detail for many years and read both sides of the story from those involved and those who investigated the case in the field and via personal interviews. Like Roswell it has grown and been added to over the years but is essentially explainable without the need to invoke alien spacecraft and alien beings floating in bubbles.
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't think someone like Col. Halt would make this up, or be looking for this kind of attention. You mentioned making money off UFO conferences etc... These type of men are looked up to and held in high regard - by going public with this their entire reputation is destroyed and the sniggering factor kicks in, yet they stuck to their story.
One year ago:
The Halt AffidavitIn June 2010, retired Colonel Charles Halt signed a notarized affidavit, in which he again summarized what had happened, then stated he believed the event to be extraterrestrial and it had been covered up by both the US and UK:
"I believe the objects that I saw at close quarter were extraterrestrial in origin and that the security services of both the United States and the United Kingdom have attempted—both then and now—to subvert the significance of what occurred at Rendlesham Forest and RAF Bentwaters by the use of well-practiced methods of disinformation."
Halt also dismissed claims that he and his men had confused a UFO with a lighthouse beam:
"While in Rendlesham Forest, our security team observed a light that looked like a large eye, red in color, moving through the trees. After a few minutes this object began dripping something that looked like molten metal. A short while later it broke into several smaller, white-colored objects which flew away in all directions. Claims by skeptics that this was merely a sweeping beam from a distant lighthouse are unfounded; we could see the unknown light and the lighthouse simultaneously. The latter was 35 to 40-degrees off where all of this was happening."
Well DB, as a skeptic, have you heard of and what do you make of the Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident? Is this just more bullshit IYO?  |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
In relation to Halts claim "this object began dripping something that looked like molten metal." I'd ask why wasn't this molten metal recovered and tested by Halt and his crew?.
Rendlesham is a puzzle where every answer raises a question. We'll probably never get the truth and therefore must go off the evidence which to date is 'claims'.
'Claims' just aren't enough to convince me I'm sorry but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Re: the JAL 1628 incident:
Initially impressive but on examination a number of questions arise, for example:
As the airplane passed over Eielson Air Force Base, near Fairbanks, the captain said he noticed, looming behind his airplane, the dark silhouette of a gigantic "mothership" larger than two aircraft carriers.
When Pilots See UFOs
Dennis Stacy, Air & Space Magazine, December 1987/January
A huge Mothership above an Airforce base that was not intercepted by the military?. Weak radar returns were reported from a ground based Radar Station but surely a Mothership the size of two Aircraft carriers would have been picked up on military radar or possibly even sighted from the ground?.
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
'Claims' just aren't enough to convince me I'm sorry but the plural of anecdote is not data.
Well I don't agree - good testimony (not exaggerated or added to over time etc) from highly credible witnesses, when stacked one on top of the other on top of the other on top of the other etc... eventually becomes evidence.
When Pilots See UFOs
Dennis Stacy, Air & Space Magazine, December 1987/January
A huge Mothership above an Airforce base that was not intercepted by the military?. Weak radar returns were reported from a ground based Radar Station but surely a Mothership the size of two Aircraft carriers would have been picked up on military radar or possibly even sighted from the ground?.
DB
Maybe they WERE picked up on military radar - without a doubt they WERE - does that necessarily mean the military will broadcast this information/release it? Remember if any UFO/ET story is true, then THERE IS a supprssion of this knowledge by the security services.
This is a solid case. You just don't want to believe DB. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
Agentscott
Joined: 08 Feb 2011
Posts: 1042
Location: Essex
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great work Cactus.
But your wasting your time.
The debunkers have their own agenda and we don't know it.
DB will deny everythig supposedly in the name of science. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Denial is not a river in Egypt 
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes DB is a cynic. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecactus wrote: | | Yes DB is a cynic. |
cynic |ˈsinik|
noun
1 a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons : some cynics thought that the controversy was all a publicity stunt.
sceptic 'skep-tik'
1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2 a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.
You'll clearly see that I fall into the latter.
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons : some cynics thought that the controversy was all a publicity stunt.
Such as saying someone fakes UFO encounters to make money of the conference circuit as you said yesterday.
Db you fall into the first category |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe their experiences were genuine misperceptions such as the Orfordness Lighthouse etc, maybe they got carried away in a collective delusion fuelled by panic?.
sceptic 'skep-tik'
1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes you question, but even when you are given a good answer, you are still always 'cynical' - there is no give and take. |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
D B Sweeney
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Posts: 2842
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecactus wrote: | | Yes you question, but even when you are given a good answer, you are still always 'cynical' - there is no give and take. |
I get very few 'good answers' I get a lot of speculation, anecdotes and 'claims'.
Bring some meat to the table,in other words bring the sausage not the sizzle and I'll modify my scepticism.
DB |
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
thecactus
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 3198
Location: Northern Ireland
|
|
|
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Worldofghosts 24 hour chat room
