Both screenshots from NT News newspaper Darwin 26 May 2021
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Both screenshots from NT News newspaper Darwin 26 May 2021
From 11 years ago: https://www.ufocasebook.com/2010/australiantinvaded.html
Deja vu for UFO hot spot Humpty Doo? I suspect drones explains latest report but wait for YT vid to appear where usually some commenter sorts it out right.
Deja vu for UFO hot spot Humpty Doo? I suspect drones explains latest report but wait for YT vid to appear where usually some commenter sorts it out right.
I'm going to use this thread to point out something egregious not covered in another one now locked from further comment. The post in question is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ru...bout-release-of-e-t-data.164351/#post-3675541
So I decided to actually start watching that ~ 4 hr long vid, waiting for the first signs of pure BS to appear. Wasn't long in. Start at 12:00 and go to 13:35.
So - the terribly concerned ETs innocently and lovingly kept up hovering sorties over the 509th Bomber Squadron - sussing out dangerous tendencies presumably. Then the wicked US military downed 3 of them, recovering all 3 'disks' inclusive of 3 ft tall ETs on board each of them, with 'ostensibly' high powered radar. But Greer knew that was an internal cover story. What really downed them was 'longitudinal scalar wave weapons'. I guess he elsewhere links that to Nikola Tesla. Anyway I stopped watching at that point. Anyone with a basic understanding of EM theory and practice will understand why. I presume Dennis Tate lacks that basic understanding. Unfortunately he is far from being alone in that.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ru...bout-release-of-e-t-data.164351/#post-3675541
So I decided to actually start watching that ~ 4 hr long vid, waiting for the first signs of pure BS to appear. Wasn't long in. Start at 12:00 and go to 13:35.
So - the terribly concerned ETs innocently and lovingly kept up hovering sorties over the 509th Bomber Squadron - sussing out dangerous tendencies presumably. Then the wicked US military downed 3 of them, recovering all 3 'disks' inclusive of 3 ft tall ETs on board each of them, with 'ostensibly' high powered radar. But Greer knew that was an internal cover story. What really downed them was 'longitudinal scalar wave weapons'. I guess he elsewhere links that to Nikola Tesla. Anyway I stopped watching at that point. Anyone with a basic understanding of EM theory and practice will understand why. I presume Dennis Tate lacks that basic understanding. Unfortunately he is far from being alone in that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am sorely disappointed.
This discussion has encouraged me to refresh my knowledge of UFO events and bone up on anything new. I picked up this New York Times bestseller called UFOs - Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean (2010). It has some pretty glowing reviews, mostly lauding its even-handed attention to fact, so I thought it would be fairly trustworthy.
"Like me, Leslie Kean is an agnostic on the issue of UFOs.
Her book is a fine piece of journalism – not about beliefs, but about facts.
Kean presents the most accurate, most credible reports on UFO’s you will ever find.
She has fought long and hard to discover the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
She may not have the final smoking gun, but I smell the gunpowder.”
—Miles O’Brien, former CNN space/science correspondent
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/201625/ufos-by-leslie-kean/
I'm about half way in, reading the most astonishing compelling accounts I've ever heard of.
One in particular has me wide-eyed. The Incident at Rendlesham Forest (1980). The account not only describes a military official being so close to a UFO (i.e. in contact with) for an extended period of time that he was able to not only sketch the symbols on its side - but he was actually able to touch the craft and report that the symbols were rough like sandpaper.
The account as told in the book is thirteen ages long, and describes in detail Sgt. Penniston and other military personnel moving through the forest and coming across this craft. He says how he was able to walk all the way around the craft (which was about nine feet long), and eventually he put his hand on it. The book's account shows pages from his logbook with his sketch of the craft from several angles, as well as a page of the symbols.
No swamp gas, no sightings of Venus here. He touched it! This ought to blow the secrecy surrounding UFOs wide open!
I began to soften my attitude toward river, MR and Q-reeus. This certainly seemed like an irrefutable UFO encounter. MR in particular puts great faith in the observational skills, reporting acumen and honesty - of military officials. This account has it all - the Holy Grail.
I was fascinated and decided to read up a little more on the incident.
Oops.
The account, as told in this book, has rather large holes you could drive a truck through. Self-consistency holes - the kind the author must have been aware of and clearly attempted to side-step.
During the incident, Penniston estimated that he got no closer than about 50 metres to the object and that every time he tried to approach it, it moved ahead of him. This was relayed at the time by radio to his supervisor, Master Sergeant Chandler, who confirms it in his own statement. There was no mention at the time of the much closer and extended encounter that Penniston has since claimed.
The only witness to claim he saw a mechanical object was Penniston. And yet the book's account say his "team" approached it. Later, in his offical report, he says nothing about the physical encounter, only about following lights through the forest. That part is consistent with other reports.
In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes. However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (presumably meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: ‘Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down’. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: ‘Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.’ Penniston now claims the date and time refer to a stream of binary digits he received telepathically and wrote down while at home the following day, but unfortunately that is not what the notebook shows.
No mention at all of the telepathic message in the book. I guess the author felt that was too extraordinary - the straw that breaks the believer's back. So she just left it out.
Source:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.html
What does seem to be based in reality is the most conservative version of Penniston's mutually contradictory accounts (and the only one consistent with all his teammates' accounts) - that of the description of the lights in the forest matches very closely with a known lighthouse nearby.
Whether or not the claimed events really happened - my concern is that the author of the book did not see fit to address these critical inconsistencies. In particular, the symbols and diagrams in this logbook were laid out inline with his initial account of events - as if the logbook was part of his initial account. Why, if the diagrams were drawn later (say, for clarification) would the book simply skip over that detail, and lead readers to think this was one neat story wrapped up in a bow? That - like the inconsistencies in Penniston's own accounts - is proof that the author is consciously manipulating the narrative.
And so, there is sufficient doubt cast on the author's credibility - as well as the veracity of the alleged extraordinary events that I can't trust this book.
This UFO flap has been around for seven decades - long enough to squeeze out poor quality accounts and opportunistic authors. I really expected that this book would be an example - in fact, one among many - of an objective, rational, fact-based accounting. The fact that the only way - still - that they can get people to read about UFOs is to confabulate events - is damning evidence against its reality.
And I really am let down.
This discussion has encouraged me to refresh my knowledge of UFO events and bone up on anything new. I picked up this New York Times bestseller called UFOs - Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean (2010). It has some pretty glowing reviews, mostly lauding its even-handed attention to fact, so I thought it would be fairly trustworthy.
"Like me, Leslie Kean is an agnostic on the issue of UFOs.
Her book is a fine piece of journalism – not about beliefs, but about facts.
Kean presents the most accurate, most credible reports on UFO’s you will ever find.
She has fought long and hard to discover the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
She may not have the final smoking gun, but I smell the gunpowder.”
—Miles O’Brien, former CNN space/science correspondent
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/201625/ufos-by-leslie-kean/
I'm about half way in, reading the most astonishing compelling accounts I've ever heard of.
One in particular has me wide-eyed. The Incident at Rendlesham Forest (1980). The account not only describes a military official being so close to a UFO (i.e. in contact with) for an extended period of time that he was able to not only sketch the symbols on its side - but he was actually able to touch the craft and report that the symbols were rough like sandpaper.
The account as told in the book is thirteen ages long, and describes in detail Sgt. Penniston and other military personnel moving through the forest and coming across this craft. He says how he was able to walk all the way around the craft (which was about nine feet long), and eventually he put his hand on it. The book's account shows pages from his logbook with his sketch of the craft from several angles, as well as a page of the symbols.
No swamp gas, no sightings of Venus here. He touched it! This ought to blow the secrecy surrounding UFOs wide open!
I began to soften my attitude toward river, MR and Q-reeus. This certainly seemed like an irrefutable UFO encounter. MR in particular puts great faith in the observational skills, reporting acumen and honesty - of military officials. This account has it all - the Holy Grail.
I was fascinated and decided to read up a little more on the incident.
Oops.
The account, as told in this book, has rather large holes you could drive a truck through. Self-consistency holes - the kind the author must have been aware of and clearly attempted to side-step.
During the incident, Penniston estimated that he got no closer than about 50 metres to the object and that every time he tried to approach it, it moved ahead of him. This was relayed at the time by radio to his supervisor, Master Sergeant Chandler, who confirms it in his own statement. There was no mention at the time of the much closer and extended encounter that Penniston has since claimed.
The only witness to claim he saw a mechanical object was Penniston. And yet the book's account say his "team" approached it. Later, in his offical report, he says nothing about the physical encounter, only about following lights through the forest. That part is consistent with other reports.
In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes. However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (presumably meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: ‘Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down’. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: ‘Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.’ Penniston now claims the date and time refer to a stream of binary digits he received telepathically and wrote down while at home the following day, but unfortunately that is not what the notebook shows.
No mention at all of the telepathic message in the book. I guess the author felt that was too extraordinary - the straw that breaks the believer's back. So she just left it out.
Source:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.html
What does seem to be based in reality is the most conservative version of Penniston's mutually contradictory accounts (and the only one consistent with all his teammates' accounts) - that of the description of the lights in the forest matches very closely with a known lighthouse nearby.
Whether or not the claimed events really happened - my concern is that the author of the book did not see fit to address these critical inconsistencies. In particular, the symbols and diagrams in this logbook were laid out inline with his initial account of events - as if the logbook was part of his initial account. Why, if the diagrams were drawn later (say, for clarification) would the book simply skip over that detail, and lead readers to think this was one neat story wrapped up in a bow? That - like the inconsistencies in Penniston's own accounts - is proof that the author is consciously manipulating the narrative.
And so, there is sufficient doubt cast on the author's credibility - as well as the veracity of the alleged extraordinary events that I can't trust this book.
This UFO flap has been around for seven decades - long enough to squeeze out poor quality accounts and opportunistic authors. I really expected that this book would be an example - in fact, one among many - of an objective, rational, fact-based accounting. The fact that the only way - still - that they can get people to read about UFOs is to confabulate events - is damning evidence against its reality.
And I really am let down.
Last edited:
Ian Ridpath's conclusion that all the military personnel involved, plus UK police, variously over 3 consecutive nights, were all spooked by a lighthouse beacon seen through the forest trees, plus maybe a single meteor fireball incident on one of those nights, is just too stupid to take seriously. Like - that lighthouse did it's thing every night the same for decades. How could anyone at the nearby two bases NOT have been fully familiar with that pedestrian fact? And a one off ephemeral meteoric streak is so far off eyewitness accounts it's laughable to try and connect. One fairly balanced article:
https://interestingengineering.com/21-facts-about-the-unresolved-ufo-incident-at-rendlesham-forest
The man widely regarded as the most reliable and consistent participant, then Colonel Charles Halt, who tape-recorded the 3rd night incident in a running firsthand commentary, gave this per-conference brief synopsis in 2015:
The full conference presentation (with unfortunately less than great sound quality):
https://interestingengineering.com/21-facts-about-the-unresolved-ufo-incident-at-rendlesham-forest
The man widely regarded as the most reliable and consistent participant, then Colonel Charles Halt, who tape-recorded the 3rd night incident in a running firsthand commentary, gave this per-conference brief synopsis in 2015:
Years ago, before cellphones, a local woman took some video of a "UFO". The university's astronomy department concluded that it was the moon. The woman asked, "Don't you think I know the moon when I see it?" They responded, "If your camera was pointed where you said it was pointed, the moon would be in your picture."
Nothing is too stupid to be taken seriously.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
[DUPE]
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's not Ridpath's conclusion. It's the contradictory nature of the testimonies of the personnel. And Penniston has contradicted himself.
Really? Good.
'Another witness, Ed Cabansag, described seeing, "a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit-up farmhouse. We got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance." '
I guess you're satisfied this incident has been satisfactorily explained as a misidentification. That's progress.
Again, I want to be clear: my post isn't about the event - it's about the author/book. Whether or not the events did or did not happen, this author has deliberately manipulated the accounting of the events, leaving parts out that dramatically weaken the case. This book, written long after all the shenanigans should have rotted away, should (in fact, claims to) reveal the facts without bias. This is demonstrably false. The author simply omitted any and all inconvenient facts. Why, in this day and age, must authors still lie?
Military personnel disagree and confabulate. Authors manipulate. No opinion of UFO encounters should be based on supposed unchallengeable authority.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's what I was wondering. How could anyone stationed at that base not be familiar with that lighthouse beacon? It's another case of skeptics assuming the eyewitnesses were complete idiots.
The strength of this case is the credibility of Halt's account. So detailed and unmistakable.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it isn't.
Again:
"...witness Ed Cabansag said "We got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance." '
Does it not behoove you to know what you're talking about if you're going to participate?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Halt didn't say it was a lighthouse beacon. So he must be an idiot right?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I never said anyone was an 'idiot'. On the contrary, I feel that everyone makes mistakes. It is not idiotic to misidentify something.
Check the record. That vitriol came from your camp. If you're going to put words in anyone's mouth - they belong in Q-reeus'.
You might want to staunch the bleeding from that bullet hole in your foot.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm curious about your logic.
So, one guy of the whole team says one thing, and each of the team members all say conflicting things. Would you say that qualifies as a high-quality account? Or would you say there being as many different descriptions as there are people doing the describing makes for a low-quality incident?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Gonna be a challenge to find recent, unbiased and fact-based book on the current state of UFOlogy continues. They seem to be rarer than trustworthy UFO accounts.
Charles Halt's brief but very clear recounting of the incidents plus disclosure of other's corroborative testimonies (once free of military censure), 1st link in #4745, is either pure lying or true. I have no good reason to believe the former. So Leslie Kean has engaged in selective journalism - and that destroys the entire collective body of evidence over many decades - recent US naval encounters included? Ha ha ha. Not really.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
They've been presented with more than enough evidence here in this thread while not even responding to dozens of compelling cases. At this point you can lead a skeptic to the evidence, but you can't make him think.
You use the word "skeptic" the same way a creationist or other religious fanatic uses it - as if it was a bad thing.
Everybody should be skeptical at all times. It's the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I've read a book on what is purported to be one of the most compelling cases in all UFOdom, next only to the Roswell Incident itself.
Not blurry pictures or fuzzy silhouettes, but military personnel - multiple accounts, of very close contact for an extended duration and physical evidence left behind - this is, as you have repeatedly implied - your Perfect Storm - your most compelling Holy Grail of incidents.
"But wait" you say, "never mind what I've been saying all along. Look over here."
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Could not have said this better myself.
MR: would you have a priest go looking on your behalf for the answer to the existence of God? Would you trust what he brought you?
MR has just demonstrated that he has no interest in separating wheat and chaff.
He is perfectly happy listing hearsay stories from people who forgot the details of the story they were told alongside every other account. That's just one of the "dozens of compelling cases" with "more than enough evidence " he offers.
Most people set the bar for "compelling" just a wee bit higher than him.
Last edited:
How about these two photos to help out MR
I observed it myself over a few days
It was silent, performed odd maneuvers
I expect it to return this afternoon