Hoax? [Staged events & SAS Involvement Merged]
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Hoax? [Staged events & SAS Involvement Merged]
by nobody » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:32 pm
What are the chances of this whole thing being a hoax? Can anyone give any convincing reasons to believe something actually happened out there? Could someone have made it all up and gotten lots of people to go along with it? As far as I know, that's not as farfetched as these stories seem. Any thoughts at all?
- nobody
Was it a hoax?
by Observer » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:39 am
Hi guest
If you stop to think this one through and then look at how it could have been a hoax. You will i hope start to see how complex the whole phenomena was.
It would have taken a Hollywood special effects unit to stage this and then i doubt very much if they could have pulled it off with the techniques and technology of the day.
There is too much evidence from lots of witnesses for this to have been a hoax.
We as a forum are always interested to listen to any theory that any one wishes to put forward.
Was it a staged hoax or was it a staged conspiricy amongst many US airmen? I doubt either.
I am very interested to hear peoples hoax theories?
Observer
If you stop to think this one through and then look at how it could have been a hoax. You will i hope start to see how complex the whole phenomena was.
It would have taken a Hollywood special effects unit to stage this and then i doubt very much if they could have pulled it off with the techniques and technology of the day.
There is too much evidence from lots of witnesses for this to have been a hoax.
We as a forum are always interested to listen to any theory that any one wishes to put forward.
Was it a staged hoax or was it a staged conspiricy amongst many US airmen? I doubt either.
I am very interested to hear peoples hoax theories?
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
SAS stunt?
by Observer » Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:36 pm
Hi Guest
I like your theory about the SAS raiding Bentwaters. It would be typical of the SAS to pick Christmas as the base would not be expecting any such exercise especially from the Brits at that time of year, but you never can tell with the SAS.
SAS exercises were/are usually very covert and secretive, so they bring no attention to their activities.
Was the phenomena in Rendlesham forest a divertionary tactic by the SAS at the Woodbridge base so they could carry out a 'mission' at Bentwaters?
There were no reports of unusual happenings at Bentwaters.
My question is, what do you think the SAS did that all the airmen witnessed? Lets have some ideas?
Observer
I like your theory about the SAS raiding Bentwaters. It would be typical of the SAS to pick Christmas as the base would not be expecting any such exercise especially from the Brits at that time of year, but you never can tell with the SAS.
SAS exercises were/are usually very covert and secretive, so they bring no attention to their activities.
Was the phenomena in Rendlesham forest a divertionary tactic by the SAS at the Woodbridge base so they could carry out a 'mission' at Bentwaters?
There were no reports of unusual happenings at Bentwaters.
My question is, what do you think the SAS did that all the airmen witnessed? Lets have some ideas?
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Guest » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Can't lay claim to the theory as such.
I first heard it proposed at a talk Andrew Pike gave last year for the 25th anniversary of the case. I think I am right in saying his father was 'very up' in SAS matters which is why he looked into that angle.
How they did it? Probably classified. But electrifying the air is easy using a Van der Graff generator, a few dry ice machines hidden in fake trees (who would notice one or two extra in Rendlesham Forest especially in all the chaos of the night?) and an 'anti-gravity' machine using a helium balloon in a lightweight shell, yes I think it is possible and the most likely answer. Remote controlled by radio (hence the static and problems with the airmen's radios (jamming signals? Again standard SAS stuff).
As you say the SAS are good! It is right up their street and they have a scientific unit ( I think it's somewhere in the west of England).
Just look at how many of the base personnel were 'moved to other posts' after the event. Moved because the SAS report reccommended it for security reasons. Too many officers and security police went out their, exactly how many were actually in charge of a huge nuclear stock pile back at the base!!!???
It might explain the event lasting several nights - make sure, gather enough data for the report, see how different officier at hand at different times handled the events?
Given the choice between aliens and SAS - I go for SAS anytime!
But as I say only one of several theories I heard at the talk, but the one I liked the best!
I first heard it proposed at a talk Andrew Pike gave last year for the 25th anniversary of the case. I think I am right in saying his father was 'very up' in SAS matters which is why he looked into that angle.
How they did it? Probably classified. But electrifying the air is easy using a Van der Graff generator, a few dry ice machines hidden in fake trees (who would notice one or two extra in Rendlesham Forest especially in all the chaos of the night?) and an 'anti-gravity' machine using a helium balloon in a lightweight shell, yes I think it is possible and the most likely answer. Remote controlled by radio (hence the static and problems with the airmen's radios (jamming signals? Again standard SAS stuff).
As you say the SAS are good! It is right up their street and they have a scientific unit ( I think it's somewhere in the west of England).
Just look at how many of the base personnel were 'moved to other posts' after the event. Moved because the SAS report reccommended it for security reasons. Too many officers and security police went out their, exactly how many were actually in charge of a huge nuclear stock pile back at the base!!!???
It might explain the event lasting several nights - make sure, gather enough data for the report, see how different officier at hand at different times handled the events?
Given the choice between aliens and SAS - I go for SAS anytime!
But as I say only one of several theories I heard at the talk, but the one I liked the best!
- Guest
SAS theory
by Observer » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:51 am
Hi Guest
The speaker you quote has come up with one theory, it sounds a bit far fetched. It may or may not have been within the scope of the SAS, and one wonders why such an elaborate stunt? I suspect the SAS would have used much more covert activities to test the base security and airmen's reactions
The one part of the incident that no one has tried to theorise on is the UFO rose into the air, broke up into 3 parts and each part accelerated away in different directions at high speed!!
Radio control in those days would have been in the 35Mhz band as used for flying model aircraft, thus i don't think there would have been any interference strong enough to block out the airmen's radios.
They could have attempted to jam them with other devices.
The trouble with this theory as much as i like it is it seemed too elaborate for the goal that was trying to be achieved. If there was such a goal?
One theory i heard was that it was the SAS but it was done as a prank rather than in a serious vane. Only the SAS will be able to tell you how they did it, if they did at all? I have strong doubts.
If you can recall any other theories, please let us know.
Observer
The speaker you quote has come up with one theory, it sounds a bit far fetched. It may or may not have been within the scope of the SAS, and one wonders why such an elaborate stunt? I suspect the SAS would have used much more covert activities to test the base security and airmen's reactions
The one part of the incident that no one has tried to theorise on is the UFO rose into the air, broke up into 3 parts and each part accelerated away in different directions at high speed!!
Radio control in those days would have been in the 35Mhz band as used for flying model aircraft, thus i don't think there would have been any interference strong enough to block out the airmen's radios.
They could have attempted to jam them with other devices.
The trouble with this theory as much as i like it is it seemed too elaborate for the goal that was trying to be achieved. If there was such a goal?
One theory i heard was that it was the SAS but it was done as a prank rather than in a serious vane. Only the SAS will be able to tell you how they did it, if they did at all? I have strong doubts.
If you can recall any other theories, please let us know.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Beams of light
by Observer » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:12 pm
Hi Admin
Yes, i forgot to mention the beams of light in my last post, you are quite right about this. Were 'they' as you say doing a grid search as the lights were being shone in specific patterns (according to one witness). If so what were they looking for?
Was it the nuclear weapons storage area. One wonders if it was, were they doing a count of the numbers or types of weapons or both.
One thing is for sure, they were not counting the number of Pine cones per square metre on the forest floor. I also think that these beams of light were not to illuminate but were there to take readings of whatever they were aimed at.
As for man made technology that could do this, i just don't think we have it now let alone then.
If it was the Russian's trying to find out with some yet disclosed technology, then may be, but really, they would have found out using their usual spying and espionage techniques, much easier!
Its worth remembering that many RAF bases at that time also stockpiled NW, so why was Woodbridge picked out?
The RAF's V bomber force was a much greater threat to the soviet block because they carried H Bomb weapons yet there has been no similar reported incident at any of the V force bases!
I think the 3 objects in the air were robotic surviellance craft!
Observer
Yes, i forgot to mention the beams of light in my last post, you are quite right about this. Were 'they' as you say doing a grid search as the lights were being shone in specific patterns (according to one witness). If so what were they looking for?
Was it the nuclear weapons storage area. One wonders if it was, were they doing a count of the numbers or types of weapons or both.
One thing is for sure, they were not counting the number of Pine cones per square metre on the forest floor. I also think that these beams of light were not to illuminate but were there to take readings of whatever they were aimed at.
As for man made technology that could do this, i just don't think we have it now let alone then.
If it was the Russian's trying to find out with some yet disclosed technology, then may be, but really, they would have found out using their usual spying and espionage techniques, much easier!
Its worth remembering that many RAF bases at that time also stockpiled NW, so why was Woodbridge picked out?
The RAF's V bomber force was a much greater threat to the soviet block because they carried H Bomb weapons yet there has been no similar reported incident at any of the V force bases!
I think the 3 objects in the air were robotic surviellance craft!
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests