Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Rendlesham: Explained Again?

  1. #1
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305

    Rendlesham: Explained Again?

    Blogger, Sacha Christie, has recently posted a document which she believes may suggest a conventional explanation for the events which occured at the joint US/UK bases at Bentwaters/Woodbridge in Dec 1980.

    She includes a link to the full 243 page document from the Defense Nuclear Agency on the topic of "The role of behaviour Sciences in Physical Security".

    Read the blog entry at - http://sacha-christie-infomaniachousewife.blogspot.com/2012/02/rendlesham-revealed.html

    Direct link to the Defense Nuclear Agency document - https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...4MTY0&hl=en_US
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  2. #2
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    Jim Penniston responds:

    "... here is the posting I did on the Justice site last night. She was using this 244 page Defense Nuclear Agency program document to explain the RFI. I thought I set one of her supporters straight with this. I just happen to be very familure with the document and program she was trying to use. Posting below from Justice site. @Daniel. Dan, I am glad you like this document. This document is part of a testing program by the Defense Nuclear Agency. It was designed to test and understand effects from interior alarms within weapons storage structures, and the MAID MILES (Magnetic Anti-Intrusion Detection Line Sensor) magnetic line sensors surrounding WSAs, which also included FDS (Fence Disturbance System) which was attached to outer chain link fences on WSAs. . The study program was two-fold, one it had a concentration of prolong effects of physiological effects such as mental fatigue. It further looked at the line sensors; the Maid Miles could cause some other minor conditions if you were exposed to the magnetic field from the line sensor.

    Prolong exposure would have to be caused from directly standing within the very small area of influence. (The actual distant would be classified, but outside the immediate area of the WSA that is installed in would determine range. But rest assured it would be less than twenty feet... And two, the study and testing also observed and evaluated responses from SRTs (Security Alert Teams) and by ARTs (Alarm Response Teams), back up times, and effectiveness under fatigue situations was also evaluated under this study.

    I was a qualified SPCDS Operator and was certified in that position, I further wrote and developed all Security OPLANS, and Security Directives for the twin bases. It is important to know, that this testing was done stateside at Nellis AFB in the early 1980s for Sandia Labs. Testing of this sort was done entirely in the states for standardization purposes. The USAF never conducts testing outside the continental United States. Because of security reasons.

    It also studied time responses and back up of security teams and SPCDS Operator alarm Annunciations within the Shelter when this alarm was active. This program that you and Ronnie are referring too, once read in its entirety you will find, answers NOTHING I am afraid, because people are trying to re-write was it is intended for.

    It is simply a standardization and evaluation of a bigger security picture involving the type of systems used and response initiatives. In either case, to have any medical or physiological effect, you would have to live inside a structure for about five years to be effected or be camped outside for years trying to get a medical effect from this by-product of these alarm systems. An interesting fact is the study determined in .001 percent of the cases involving testing; it only created a slight medical condition. Very rare and remote.

    So I am not knocking theories Dan, I am only telling you that this program/study does not have anything to do with any Air Force Base which is located overseas. I do understand that bogus information like this detracts and can mislead people, and derail them from what really happened at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge. The answers are very simple, and we will see you in June. "

    Source: Facebook
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  3. #3
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    Thanks to researcher Dave Haith, who sent the original blog link to his email list, for the following responses:

    Col John B. Alexander, (Ret), responds:

    "Nonsense. Your explanation does not fit the facts - four decades of them.
    That's hardly a DNA experiment.
    This is ergofusion, typical of the field. There is nothing in the document
    you sent that in any way relates to the Bentwaters case. As indicated in my
    earlier email, unusual events at Bentwaters preceded the now famous
    two-three days, and have continued up until recently, long after the base
    was closed. Making a case that it was a psychological experiment (which
    others have done as well) just doesn't accommodate the facts. In fact, I
    doubt that we currently have the capability to recreate the incident as
    described by the large number of witnesses."

    Here's what Nick Pope has to say:

    "I’m skeptical that any trial of the sort suggested here (with personnel at
    Bentwaters/Woodbridge being used as ‘guinea pigs’ in an attempt to see how
    security personnel would react to various - possibly exotic - events) took
    place or could have explained the Rendlesham Forest incident. On page 7 of
    the document that’s being quoted, for example, you’ll find the quote: "...
    everybody early in the game knows it is an exercise ... what you cannot do
    as far as I can see at the present time is to actually initiate an event
    that will result in the call out of a fire team, for example, without the
    whole system knowing it is an exercise. That simply is beyond the scope of
    what we might be able to do.

    Even if something like this had happened, MoD would have received advance
    notice or, at the very least, retrospective notice, and I would recall this
    from MoD files. In any case, conducting such a test in the UK would have
    been an added and unnecessary complication – any such test would most likely
    have been conducted in the Continental United States.

    More generally, where the whole theory falls down is on the idea that you'd
    concoct a UFO encounter as a cover story. There would have been no need.
    You'd simply tell those personnel concerned that they’d been involved in an
    exercise, that the details were classified and that they weren't to talk
    about it. Most, if not all, would have complied."
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  4. #4
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    Robert Hastings, author: UFOs and Nukes:

    Sacha,

    I research nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents utilizing declassified US
    government documents and the testimony of ex-military personnel. Since 1973
    I have interviewed more than 130 of those veterans, including the seven who
    participated in my September 27, 2010 press conference in Washington D.C.
    CNN streamed that event live and the full-length video of it may be viewed
    at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUU4Z8QdHI

    While your scenario is interesting, it simply will not work. In point of
    fact, declassified documents and supporting witness testimony confirm that
    UFO incursions at nuclear Weapons Storage Areas (WSAs) such as the one at
    RAF Bentwaters first occurred in the late 1940s, at Killeen Base, in Texas,
    and Manzano Base, in New Mexico. Indeed, such incursions are well documented
    throughout the era of nuclear weapons testing, deployment and storage—long
    before the experiment proposed in the DNA document you have used as the
    basis for your speculation.

    Re: the Bentwaters incident in particular, I will simply mention here that
    in 2006 I interviewed, on tape, the two USAF air traffic controllers who
    were on duty at the RAF Bentwaters tower during the week of UFO activity in
    December 1980. Neither had gone on-the-record previously. Both confirm
    tracking a bona fide unknown “target” that traveled 120 miles in 8-12
    seconds (that is, two to three sweeps on their radar screen) and, according
    to one of them, made a 90-degree turn at one point. The object apparently
    hovered momentarily not far from the tower and was described by one of the
    controllers as an orange-colored sphere with lights around its equator.

    In short, radar data, which are empirical not anecdotal, support the
    presence of at least one unknown, high performance aerial craft during the
    period of reported UFO activity at the twin bases in late December 1980.

    The controllers’ verbatim testimony and other information relating to the
    events of that week may be found at http://tinyurl.com/89frftl

    I will send, at no cost, copious excerpts from my book UFOs and Nukes to
    anyone who emails me at ufohastings@aol.com. The declassified information
    relating to the Killeen Base incidents, in particular, as they relate to the
    Bentwaters incidents some 30 years later, are particularly noteworthy."
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  5. #5
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    Colin Bennett author of Combat Diaries responds:

    There have been many Lutheran counter-attacks such as this. She makes the
    fundamental mistake of assuming that the documents she cites as "evidence"
    refer to Rendlesham when they may well refer to other events, or indeed be
    purely a theoretical paper for a purely theoretical excercise, which was
    probably the origin of the infamous MJ-12 papers.

    She appears not to realise that it is not necessary for any action to follow
    or indeed for any events to have "actually" occurred in order to launch an
    array of belief and "explanations" sufficient to create a belief system.
    Given Web power and mass media actuality is no longer needed for Orwellian
    Control. A controlled feed of images to archetypal appetites is all that is
    needed. Therefore the documents she refers to might be termed inspiration
    arrays more than anything "real" in the pre-postmodern sense. We would be
    fools to assume that Intelligence agencies are not into this kind of thing
    in a big way. Media is Cool Control. Eventually tanks, guns and
    concentration camps may not be needed.

    The way it works is like that method described by Borges in his story: Tlon
    Uqbar Orbis Tertius.

    Suppose Mr X claims that he has two heads on his shoulders, but only one is
    visible. A torrent of claims that the invisible head has been seen will
    surely follow. Clusters of images will swarm as in the process of
    crystallisation. Sketches and screen-shots of the invisible head will
    doubtless appear, only to be denied by the original Mr X who might insist
    that these attempts at portrayal of his invisible head are not “accurate.”
    This situation is created not by facts but by images. Others will claim to
    have a similar invisible head themselves, and a whole viral meme will have
    been created. The many pseudo-heads will cross breed, Mr X will be
    interviewed by Project Camelot, Jerry Springer Ufologists and Foil-Hat
    Radio, in which (in most cases) pseudo-evidence of a particular pseudo-event
    will be produced. It follows that the beloved scientists as
    commissar/gauleiters managing the Thou Shalt Not control system will weigh
    in with numberless denials of anything and everything beyond the sun and
    moon.

    Should anyone not believe a word of any of this than let them take a look at
    the following New Yorker article by Jeannie Vanasco
    Why is DARPA interested in story-telling?
    http://tinyurl.com/7eds62m
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  6. #6
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    Now for the forthright opinion of long time UFO and anomalies researcher
    George Wingfield:

    "********! Oh, dear , oh dear, Dave! I’m afraid that once again you’ve been
    listening to one of those krazy konspiracy kooks and especially so in this
    case, since this one even describes herself as an infomaniac housewife and
    par-abnormal investigator who produces inane ramblings. Should you really
    believe someone like this? The answer is quite simply NO.

    "Fifteen years ago I went to a UFO conference at which Larry Warren was
    giving a presentation based on his book “Left at East Gate” which he wrote
    with Peter Robbins. Peter is an honest guy and clearly believed all that
    Larry had told him but in my judgment Larry is not, and I got the very
    strong impression that much of what he said was fabricated. I am seldom
    wrong about these things.

    "Over the years other researchers have increasingly questioned Larry Warren’s
    testimony about the Bentwaters/Rendlesham Forest case and it is almost
    certain that he was not actually there in December 1980 when these events
    occurred, although he was posted to the base at some stage. If you read
    Georgina Bruni’s excellent book “You Can’t Tell the People” on Rendlesham
    you will find that was her take on the matter. There were many other USAF
    servicemen who witnessed UFO events in Rendlesham Forest and over RAF
    Bentwaters at the time and I have far more faith in what they say than I
    have in Larry Warren. Charles Halt, John Burroughs, Jim Penniston, Adrian
    Bustinza, Edward Cabansag, and others are far more credible than Larry
    Warren and I have no doubt they would all reject this extraordinary new
    unsupported claim from the mad housewife in Leeds.

    "I have no axe to grind as regards whether the Rendlesham Forest events
    involved ET flying saucers, time travelers, or a psychological warfare
    experiment conducted by the Defense Nuclear Agency. I would very much like
    to know the truth but I really don’t believe this explanation is valid in
    any way. Jacques Vallee would favour a solution of this kind but I very
    much doubt that he would support this kind of evidence .

    "I will just add that the UFO conference at which I met Larry Warren was
    also one where I met and got to know Whitley Strieber. I like Whitley immensely
    and he was always the life and soul of the party but I soon became aware
    that his alien encounters as described in “Communion –A True Story” were
    solely horror fiction. I saw quite a bit of Whitley at one time and also
    talked to his wife and other friends of his and I am now 100% sure that his
    abduction and anal rape by aliens was something that only happened in his
    very fertile imagination and not in our consensus reality.

    "So whatever the truth of the Rendlesham Forest case, I very much doubt that
    you will find it in the inane ramblings of this Leeds housewife. As, they
    used to say in the X-Files: TRUST NO ONE! Especially not the likes of
    her. Please pass this letter of mine on to others on your mailing list in
    case they too have been misled."
    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  7. #7
    Administrator Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    1,305
    For those interested, there is a two part interview with Sacha Christie available on youtube:



    The OutPost Forum - "Breaking the Boundaries of Science, Exploring the Frontier of Understanding"

  8. #8
    It seems to be a recurring theme, these days.

    A while ago, there was Leah Haley, who for years had toured the circuit, speaking about her abduction experiences, who then suddenly started claiming it never happened, and it was all some government mind control experiment!
    Not that she ever bothered to actually provide anything to back that up...

    Maybe all these 'it's a government mind control project' theories are in themselves mind control experiments: see how the new meme catches on!
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
    - Charles Darwin

  9. #9
    This just in from Jerry Pippin: "Lee, we are going to have Sacha on our show tomorrow night to discuss this in detail. If you are anyone has any quesitons feel free to call it. The show is on from 7:00 to 9:00 Eastern on www.inceptionradio.com "

    Tomorrow = Monday 13 Feb, 7-9 PM Eastern.
    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
    - Charles Darwin

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Garuda View Post
    Maybe all these 'it's a government mind control project' theories are in themselves mind control experiments: see how the new meme catches on!
    Bingo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •