Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Congressmen are now asking the Navy about secret UFO wreckage.

Options
13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,638 ✭✭✭✭bangkok


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you read my post I wrote there is another take on it, which I provided

    And if we read into it further, it does fall apart, as always
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident
    (read from skeptical analysis onwards)

    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

    and to go deeper
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325647&page=5

    Like is so common in these incidents, the "details" quickly become murky and blurry and contradictory under examination. As I mentioned earlier in the thread there are rarely clear-cut encounters.

    Anyway, we all have pocket video recorders, any day now..

    Google tehran 1976 incident...

    Also you say we all have pocket video recorders.... take a video the next time the ISS passes overhead in the night sky or when you see a 747 passing by in the sky. Quality is crap no matter how good your phone


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you read my post I wrote there is another take on it, which I provided

    And if we read into it further, it does fall apart, as always
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident
    (read from skeptical analysis onwards)

    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

    and to go deeper
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325647&page=5

    Like is so common in these incidents, the "details" quickly become murky and blurry and contradictory under examination. As I mentioned earlier in the thread there are rarely clear-cut encounters.

    Anyway, we all have pocket video recorders, any day now..

    Skeptics claim it was just a lighthouse light they have no other explantation. Do you believe they are right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,638 ✭✭✭✭bangkok


    Skeptics claim it was just a lighthouse light they have no other explantation. Do you believe they are right?

    Surprised they didnt say it was jupiter as well


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bangkok wrote: »
    Google tehran 1976 incident...

    Also you say we all have pocket video recorders.... take a video the next time the ISS passes overhead in the night sky or when you see a 747 passing by in the sky. Quality is crap no matter how good your phone

    I can capture an airliner pretty well on my phone.

    It would work even better in all the "close" encounters that people seem to have had prior to everyone having mobile phones


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    bangkok wrote: »
    Surprised they didnt say it was jupiter as well

    I just saying this is go to answer for Skeptics. They believe somehow airmen on the base were fooled by a blinking light near the coast. They ignore they other parts of the story and audio tape. Skeptics don't trust anyone who don't believe what they do.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I can capture an airliner pretty well on my phone.

    It would work even better in all the "close" encounters that people seem to have had prior to everyone having mobile phones

    Airliners take off every damn day from multiple airports. Of course it easy to capture the plane on phone. We talking about phenomenon appears now and again randomly. Most of big sightings happened before mobiles came out. Some day soon i bet we going to capture it on on camera, but then again people can just say its CGI and fake. We never going to know unless the military releases video of a UFO and we know they have better footage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,638 ✭✭✭✭bangkok


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I can capture an airliner pretty well on my phone.

    It would work even better in all the "close" encounters that people seem to have had prior to everyone having mobile phones

    There was a close encounter recently off the coast of ireland, seen by multiple pilots. There has been no explanation for that and no video footage


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I just saying this is go to answer for Skeptics.

    You capitalise this word, I genuinely don't think you understand it's meaning
    They believe somehow airmen on the base were fooled by a blinking light near the coast. They ignore they other parts of the story and audio tape. Skeptics don't trust anyone who don't believe what they do.

    "According to the witness statements from 26 December the flashing light seen from the forest lay in the same direction as the Orfordness Lighthouse. When the eyewitnesses attempted to approach the light they realised it was further off than they thought. One of the witnesses, Ed Cabansag, described it as “a beacon light off in the distance” while another, John Burroughs, said it was “a lighthouse” (see Statements from eyewitnesses on 26 December, above)."

    "Timings on Halt’s tape recording during his sighting on 28 December indicate that the light he saw, which lay in the same direction as the light seen two nights earlier, flashed every five seconds, which was the flash rate of the Orfordness Lighthouse.[33]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident

    Hmm :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Belgium wave of sighting in the 90s images of a UFO was taken. Nato Aircraft chased the objects.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

    One image was released in the night sky allegedly photographed over Belgium#

    486909.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,638 ✭✭✭✭bangkok


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You capitalise this word, I genuinely don't think you understand it's meaning



    "According to the witness statements from 26 December the flashing light seen from the forest lay in the same direction as the Orfordness Lighthouse. When the eyewitnesses attempted to approach the light they realised it was further off than they thought. One of the witnesses, Ed Cabansag, described it as “a beacon light off in the distance” while another, John Burroughs, said it was “a lighthouse” (see Statements from eyewitnesses on 26 December, above)."

    "Timings on Halt’s tape recording during his sighting on 28 December indicate that the light he saw, which lay in the same direction as the light seen two nights earlier, flashed every five seconds, which was the flash rate of the Orfordness Lighthouse.[33]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident

    Hmm :)

    Why didnt they just test the lighthouse theory another night so.... what about the radiation. Lights in the sky? Beams of light on the ground?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bangkok wrote: »
    There was a close encounter recently off the coast of ireland, seen by multiple pilots. There has been no explanation for that and no video footage

    Yup and I do believe the pilots (my friend is a commercial pilot), but it was probably a piece of dust entering the atmosphere

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46181662


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bangkok wrote: »
    Why didnt they just test the lighthouse theory another night so.... what about the radiation. Lights in the sky? Beams of light on the ground?

    Yup, but it should have been another group to test it under similar conditions, if anyone could be bothered

    There was no radiation found later (according to the links I posted), the lights in the sky could have been a fireball (which are rare, but do occur, as mentioned in the links), as for the lights on the ground, dunno

    Like I keep saying, it's always the same with these encounters. Never anything concrete. Like the aliens can master interstellar travel (which we are eons away from) but struggle with the whole stealth technology, and always seem to manage to remain "blurry", just tantalisingly out of reach, glimpses, lights in trees, etc. Eerily similar to ghost and Bigfoot sightings.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You capitalise this word, I genuinely don't think you understand it's meaning



    "According to the witness statements from 26 December the flashing light seen from the forest lay in the same direction as the Orfordness Lighthouse. When the eyewitnesses attempted to approach the light they realised it was further off than they thought. One of the witnesses, Ed Cabansag, described it as “a beacon light off in the distance” while another, John Burroughs, said it was “a lighthouse” (see Statements from eyewitnesses on 26 December, above)."

    "Timings on Halt’s tape recording during his sighting on 28 December indicate that the light he saw, which lay in the same direction as the light seen two nights earlier, flashed every five seconds, which was the flash rate of the Orfordness Lighthouse.[33]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident

    Hmm :)

    Lighthouse is one blinking on and off light, on the tape there different multiple lights separate from each flying high in the sky going from one end of the sky to the next side. One light over near the farmer house, beamed a light to the ground like it was searching for something. You can even hear on the tape, station command, lights are over the woodbridge base. There just no way in hell they got fooled by lighthouse light that was flashing on and off for years. It disrespectable when one says the deputy commander of Nato nuclear base can't tell the difference between lighthouse light and ufo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Belgium wave of sighting in the 90s images of a UFO was taken. Nato Aircraft chased the objects.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

    From the first line of your link

    "The Belgian UFO wave was a series of sightings of purported triangular UFOs in Belgium, which lasted from 29 November 1989 to April 1990. Months after the event, many people claimed to have witnessed the object, but no pictures, videos or any other type of proof was ever provided."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yup and I do believe the pilots (my friend is a commercial pilot), but it was probably a piece of dust entering the atmosphere

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46181662

    I fairly certain one pilot said a fast moving object passed the airplane, going a very rapid and fast speed. Dust come on now? They even said was their military aircraft up here with us over Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Lighthouse is one blinking on and off light, on the tape there different multiple lights separate from each flying high in the sky going from one end of the sky to the next side. One light over near the farmer house, beamed a light to the ground like it was searching for something. You can even hear on the tape, station command, lights are over the woodbridge base. There just no way in hell they got fooled by lighthouse light that was flashing on and off for years. It disrespectable when one says the deputy commander of Nato nuclear base can't tell the difference between lighthouse light and ufo.

    They weren't. Read the links. The lighthouse is one component to explain one part of the episode.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I fairly certain one pilot said a fast moving object passed the airplane, going a very rapid and fast speed. Dust come on now? They even said was their military aircraft up here with us over Ireland.

    Yeah dust. Read the link.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    From the first line of your link

    "The Belgian UFO wave was a series of sightings of purported triangular UFOs in Belgium, which lasted from 29 November 1989 to April 1990. Months after the event, many people claimed to have witnessed the object, but no pictures, videos or any other type of proof was ever provided."

    Not accurate. I posted a picture awhile ago on this thread. Some people years later, claimed they faked it, but was never found to be right. Skeptics will go to extreme lengths to debunk something even claiming they faked the pictures.. Unfortunately for them similar pictures were also taken across Belgium and they also resemble this craft.

    False actually a UFO report got released by the Belgium government and their fighters chased and tracked the objects by radar. The Belgium government felt they tracked real UFOs.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They weren't. Read the links. The lighthouse is one component to explain one part of the episode.

    I can hear what happened when i listening to the tape. Maybe you should listen? It real time audio of their encounter and clear is not a lighthouse light.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Not accurate.

    I am reading from the same link you are. One photo was a hoax. There are multiple plausible theories in the explanations part. The signals tracked by the aircraft even reportedly went underground.

    Again, as always, smoke and mirrors. Nothing close to conclusive.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I can hear what happened when i listening to the tape. Maybe you should listen? It real time audio of their encounter and clear is not a lighthouse light.

    Never said it was all based on a lighthouse light, as far as I am aware no one did. This is something you seem to have invented yourself in this thread.

    Doing so is a gaslighting technique where someone creates a faulty argument and applies it to the other side


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I am reading from the same link you are. One photo was a hoax. There are multiple plausible theories in the explanations part. The signals tracked by the aircraft even reportedly went underground.

    Again, as always, smoke and mirrors. Nothing close to conclusive.

    It was not a hoax, some random guy claimed he faked a picture. Wikipedia is posting cautiously and not aware of certain things that happened, in this case.

    The belgium government held a press conference and revealed video of the objects on screen. Watch the end of the video i posted, they showed video of multiple objects locked onto by fighters jets and was opinion of the belgium general the craft acceleration on radar would have killed a human pilot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Just a screen shot of what they showed, this is the 90s- the quality of the plane onboard camera footage not great. But you can see the plane pilot was tracking and locking on, the two vertical lines at the top of the screen is the lock on..

    486916.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Never said it was all based on a lighthouse light, as far as I am aware no one did. This is something you seem to have invented yourself in this thread.

    Doing so is a gaslighting technique where someone creates a faulty argument and applies it to the other side

    Skeptics have always claimed Halt and his men saw a lighthouse light, off in the distance.

    If you don't believe was all based on lighthouse light, care to explain what else caused it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    bangkok wrote: »
    Google tehran 1976 incident...

    Also you say we all have pocket video recorders.... take a video the next time the ISS passes overhead in the night sky or when you see a 747 passing by in the sky. Quality is crap no matter how good your phone

    It only happens in the US Skeptics will tell you



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Never said it was all based on a lighthouse light, as far as I am aware no one did. This is something you seem to have invented yourself in this thread.

    Doing so is a gaslighting technique where someone creates a faulty argument and applies it to the other side

    Skeptics have always claimed Halt and his men saw a lighthouse light, off in the distance.

    If you don't believe was all based on lighthouse light, care to explain what else caused it?

    Which of them claimed to see an alien hivering around?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ipso wrote: »
    Which of them claimed to see an alien hivering around?

    Larry Warren. He claims it happened on a third night and was filmed. Col Halt said he was a liar and used the event to make money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Col halt is the most credible of all the eyewitnesses for me. Returned to the scene, later in life.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Skeptics have always claimed Halt and his men saw a lighthouse light, off in the distance.

    If you don't believe was all based on lighthouse light, care to explain what else caused it?

    You should read the links you post

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident
    The most plausible skeptical explanation is that the sightings were due to a combination of three main factors.[31] The initial sighting at 3 am on 26 December, when the airmen saw something apparently descending into the forest, coincided with the appearance of a bright fireball over southern England, and such fireballs are a common source of UFO reports.[4] The supposed landing marks were identified by police and foresters as rabbit diggings.[32] No evidence has emerged to confirm that anything actually came down in the forest.

    According to the witness statements from 26 December the flashing light seen from the forest lay in the same direction as the Orfordness Lighthouse. When the eyewitnesses attempted to approach the light they realised it was further off than they thought. One of the witnesses, Ed Cabansag, described it as “a beacon light off in the distance” while another, John Burroughs, said it was “a lighthouse” (see Statements from eyewitnesses on 26 December, above).

    Timings on Halt’s tape recording during his sighting on 28 December indicate that the light he saw, which lay in the same direction as the light seen two nights earlier, flashed every five seconds, which was the flash rate of the Orfordness Lighthouse.[33]

    The star-like objects that Halt reported hovering low to the north and south are thought by some sceptics to have been misinterpretations of bright stars distorted by atmospheric and optical effects, another common source of UFO reports. The brightest of them, to the south, matched the position of Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky.[13]

    In his 6 January 2009 Skeptoid podcast episode titled "The Rendlesham Forest UFO," scientific sceptic author Brian Dunning evaluated the original eye-witness reports and audio recordings, as well as the resulting media reporting of this incident. After a lengthy analysis Dunning concluded:

    Col. Halt's thoroughness was commendable, but even he can be mistaken. Without exception, everything he reported on his audiotape and in his written memo has a perfectly rational and unremarkable explanation... All that remains is the tale that the men were debriefed and ordered never to mention the event, and warned that "bullets are cheap". Well, as we've seen on television, the men all talk quite freely about it, and even Col. Halt says that to this day nobody has ever debriefed him. So this appears to be just another dramatic invention for television, perhaps from one of the men who have expanded their stories over the years.

    When you examine each piece of evidence separately on its own merit, you avoid the trap of pattern matching and finding correlations where none exist. The meteors had nothing to do with the lighthouse or the rabbit diggings, but when you hear all three stories told together, it's easy to conclude (as did the airmen) that the light overhead became an alien spacecraft in the forest. Always remember: Separate pieces of poor evidence don't aggregate together into a single piece of good evidence. You can stack cowpies as high as you want, but they won't turn into a bar of gold.[31]


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,572 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Noticed there was a big surge in sightings in the US around 1993. Coincidentally, that's when the X-files came out.

    The truth is out there


Advertisement