Congressmen are now asking the Navy about secret UFO wreckage.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 7:27pm

CNN even ran a story about it 80s because it was well known Nato base and claims made were astonishing.

Hobosan · 31-07-2019 7:44pm

I typically wouldn't even drop-in on relatives unannounced, yet these aliens have the temerity to blitz a base with what sounds like a light show good enough for the millennium celebrations.

I don't care how intelligent they are, without some basic manners and common courtesy, they shouldn't be welcomed on Earth.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 7:46pm

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

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 7:52pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would not call Rendlesham a flyover it was witnessed by over 30 soldiers on base and the deputy commander of one the largest nato bases in Europe in 80s, he saw it and recorded it by audio.

Yeah and here's another take on it

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-rendle-sham-case-phony-and-phonier.html

Although the overall case is complex, the main aspects can be summarized as follows:
1. Security guards saw bright lights apparently descending into Rendlesham Forest around 3 a.m on 1980 December 26. A bright fireball burned up over southern England at the same time.
2. The guards went out into the forest and saw a flashing light between the trees, which they followed until they realized it was coming from a lighthouse (Orford Ness).
3. After daybreak, indentations in the ground and marks on the trees were found in a clearing. Local police and a forester identified these as rabbit scrapings and cuts made by foresters.
4. Two nights later the deputy base commander, Lt Col Charles Halt, investigated the area. He took radiation readings, which were background levels. He also saw a flashing light in the direction of Orford Ness but was unable to identify it.
5. Col Halt reported seeing starlike objects that twinkled and hovered for hours, like stars. The brightest of these, which at times appeared to send down beams of light, was in the direction of Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.
At its most basic, the case comes down to the misinterpretation of a series of nocturnal lights – a fireball, a lighthouse, and some stars. Such misidentifications are standard fare for UFOlogy. It is only the concatenation of three different stimuli that makes it exceptional.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 8:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah and here's another take on it

https://badufos.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-rendle-sham-case-phony-and-phonier.html

Whoever wrote this is clueless.

Nothing the described sounds like a lighthouse light. This lighthouse been there since the base was build and never fooled them before. Strange lighthouse light that does something different on those two days!

False about the radition levels too. Nick Pope who was in UK MOD got the documentation and levels were higher than background levels.

Who cares about a forester thoughts are about a sighting he never witnessed, he does even know where the landing happened and his admitted to this years later on tape.

Cosmic bull**** again, Skeptics always go there and ignore they saw craft and lights a few hundred feet above the base shining lights directly down.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 9:17pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whoever wrote this is clueless.

Indeed, and your immediate response is to attack it

Skeptics always go there

Anyone who questions and applies reason to anything is skeptical. You're a skeptic, unfortunately you seem to have glaring blind spots where you completely switch it off when it comes to certain subjects

Would I like to believe aliens are visiting earth? absolutely
Is it happening? nothing close to conclusive yet
Are some incidents/sightings difficult to explain? yup, but only some, the vast majority are nonsense

People have an enormous capacity to a) lie and b) make **** up to satisfy a personal belief and literally believe that as the truth

and c) develop an inability to separate a subject from themselves. A challenge on the subject is taken as a personal attack on themselves

So getting back to it, this Rendlesham episode seems to fall apart a bit at the seams when examined

bangkok · 31-07-2019 10:04pm

There will never be a big reveal on UFO's. Why would USA or anyone for that matter say they they have advanced technology in their possession.

KIERAN1 · 31-07-2019 10:09pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, and your immediate response is to attack it

Anyone who questions and applies reason to anything is skeptical. You're a skeptic, unfortunately you seem to have glaring blind spots where you completely switch it off when it comes to certain subjects

Would I like to believe aliens are visiting earth? absolutely
Is it happening? nothing close to conclusive yet
Are some incidents/sightings difficult to explain? yup, but only some, the vast majority are nonsense

People have an enormous capacity to a) lie and b) make **** up to satisfy a personal belief and literally believe that as the truth

and c) develop an inability to separate a subject from themselves. A challenge on the subject is taken as a personal attack on themselves

So getting back to it, this Rendlesham episode seems to fall apart a bit at the seams when examined

You found a online website and some blogger guy said they most of seen a lighthouse light and they got fooled by it. Satisfied you now claim the episode falls apart, the last line of your post? You completely ignore there is audio of their encounter in the forest and we can hear their experience real-time as it was happening., i posted it. You weren't there in 80s to claim their episode is explained.

Lighthouse explantation is so stupid, and that you buy into it, actually says more about you than me. I use my head and you're not. If the lighthouse was doing it then be happening daily if not weekly and the airmen on the base would have noticed.

Had some issues signing in with the newer account, so i have to use this one that I have used in long time. I get back to old one when i can.

bangkok · 31-07-2019 10:09pm

Hobosan wrote: »

It would be nice if these aliens would visit any other country but the United States for a change.

Are we to believe not a single alien wants to kiss the Blarney Stone?

Do a bit of homework and they have been all over the globe.

Tehran 1976
The shag harbour incident
varginha brazil
Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident
Mexico multiple sightings
Uk

The list goes on

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 10:31pm

KIERAN1 wrote: »

You found a online website and some blogger guy said they most of seen a lighthouse light and they got fooled by it. Satisfied you now claim the episode falls apart, the last line of your post? You completely ignore there is audio of their encounter in the forest and we can hear their experience real-time as it was happening., i posted it. You weren't there in 80s to claim their episode is explained.

Lighthouse explantation is so stupid, and that you don't buy into it, actually says more about you than me. I use my head and you're not. If the lighthouse was doing it then be happening daily if not weekly and the airmen on the base would have noticed.

Had some issues signing with the newer account, so i have to use this one that I have used in long time. I get back to old one when i can.

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..

bangkok · 31-07-2019 10:39pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 10:42pm

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?

bangkok · 31-07-2019 10:43pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 10:46pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 10:49pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 10:54pm

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.

bangkok · 31-07-2019 10:59pm

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

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 10:59pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:00pm

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#

bangkok · 31-07-2019 11:01pm

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?

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:02pm

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

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:08pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:16pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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."

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:21pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:22pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:23pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:36pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:46pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:50pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Dohnjoe · 31-07-2019 11:54pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 31-07-2019 11:58pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 12:05am

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..

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 12:18am

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?

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 12:24am

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

Ipso · 01-08-2019 1:14am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 1:17am

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 1:30am

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

Dohnjoe · 01-08-2019 11:05am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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]

Dr. Bre · 01-08-2019 2:02pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 3:52pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You should read the links you post

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident

Again they saw multiple objects, one came into the forest and started moving under intelligent control through the trees. Lights and craft witnessed by airmen on base and one of lights hovered over the nuclear bunkers and fired down a ray of light or a laser. With every sighting you always get this explantation it was a meteor or something else. We have a real tape and very clear to anyone listening it was not a meteor or fireball in the sky the saw.

Supposed landing site was inside the forest. False Col Halt took a plaster casting of one of the holes made by the craft. They also picked up above unusual radiation heat signatures at the alleged landing site. Finding rabbit diggings in the forest does prove anything, rabbits obviously can be found at this location. The forester claimed this the 80s and he later admitted he did not know where the alleged craft landed, he just said they may be what they saw. Only a few of the airmen know exactly where the small triangle probe landed and left marks behind.

Lighthouse explantation again is nonsense, went over this already.

Ipso · 01-08-2019 4:44pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

Who gets to decide who is credible (not just in this incident but the entire filed where there are self proclaimed experts in a subject with no hard evidence)?

bangkok · 01-08-2019 8:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

I honestly dont know how anyone can say it was the lighthouse.

I wonder do they have a fear and dont want to believe in ufos??

Cheerful Spring2 · 01-08-2019 9:08pm

bangkok wrote: »

I honestly dont know how anyone can say it was the lighthouse.

I wonder do they have a fear and dont want to believe in ufos??

Its there personality, they very different human beings.Skeptics even doubted a man could build an airplane and travel in the air. If human historys tells us anything Skeptics tend to always end up on wrong side of history, they still don't learn from it though. Today we just up against the 21th century Skeptic, who thinks they have all the answers. Give it time they be proven wrong about the UFO phenomenon, it may take 5, 10, 20 years but it all come out eventually something this big can't be kept dark forever.

It not fear, there just more less likely to believe things are mysterious and they don't believe in cover ups and false flags.They have more faith western style governments don't lie, cheat, and steal as well. If its Russia they have no problem believing those conspircies, afterall its the big red menance coming to get them.

Spon Farmer · 02-08-2019 1:15pm

It is not possible to deny or not believe in the existence of UFOs.

Scully: Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean I'm going to believe they're UFOs.
Mulder: Unidentified Flying Objects.

Couldn't find the video clip.

Congressmen are now asking the Navy about secret UFO wreckage.

Comments