The landing site [later general discussion]

[John Burroughs]

Can anybody tell me more about the green mist at sea. Did it happen during the Bentwaters incident or did radar off of ships cause it or both..

[pupil88]

Hi Puddlepirate,

Global political strategists say that the risk of war comes from two sources: specific aggressors
and from the reactions of the defense, breaking down and going out of control. Hence, the need for a nuclear weapons system under supervised control.

In drawing up a set of possibilities, the strategists look at earthly scenarios. UFOs sending down light rays are not included in these scenarios because they are unreal and not considered a defensive threat.Any base attacked by a UFO would react by not reacting.

Creating a solution is a pathway between impossibles.

[pupil88]

IanR writes,

Now, let's turn to what Halt says. We know he was called out to investigate the landing site two nights after the initial sighting, and we presume this was the site shown in the photo.


If you ASSUME that Halt was called out to the site of the initial sighting of the triangular craft then you are WRONG.

Lt. Englund interrupts a party and said "they're back"' Lt Englund shows Halt a light in the forest. It was NOT the same site that occupied three airmen the first night.

Sgt. Penniston confessed to Halt that he made a cast of the indentations that a triangular craft made in the ground after learning Halt visited his site because there was some white residue left in the indentations.

On the SciFi documentary where Halt and Penniston described the sites they investigated.
They were in different locations. Halt knew they were different sites.

Your whole reconstruction was designed to fit your theory of the light house but it does not fit the facts.

[pupil88]

Ian R writes

Halt's description of the light as "red" is indeed a puzzle, as he is the only one to have described it as such. All other descriptions are of yellow or white lights.

NOT So!
.
You omitted the next two lines.
Nevilles: Yeah, it,s yellow.
Nevilles confirmed Halt's observation. He didn't say no. Then he noted a change.

Halt responds.
Halt: I saw a yellow tinge in it too. Weird

Observations are being spoken to the microrecorder and to the others.

In living speech, discourse has the character of a fleeting event.This event appears and disappears.The microrecorder fixes the discourse that enables it to be conserved.

The spyscope url is intended for another response to another question.

[Robert McLean]

Ian R writes

Halt's description of the light as "red" is indeed a puzzle, as he is the only one to have described it as such. All other descriptions are of yellow or white lights.

NOT So!
.
You omitted the next two lines.
Nevilles: Yeah, it,s yellow.
Nevilles confirmed Halt's observation. He didn't say no. Then he noted a change.

Halt responds.
Halt: I saw a yellow tinge in it too. Weird

The transcript more accurately reads:

HALT: There is no doubt about it. There’s some kind of strange flashing red light ahead.
VOICE: There. It's yellow.
HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird.

The word is "There", not "Yeah". No-one else described it as being red. Perhaps Halt is colour blind?

[puddlepirate]

Pupil88 wrote

In drawing up a set of possibilities, the strategists look at earthly scenarios. UFOs sending down light rays are not included in these scenarios because they are unreal and not considered a defensive threat.Any base attacked by a UFO would react by not reacting.

...but they would not have known the beams were not from a bandit. There was no flying from either of the twin bases over the Christmas period so whatever was up there would have been assumed to be hostile. These were front line USAFE bases with nukes stored on site, when the Cold War was at its height. Anything overflying either base without authority would have been regarded as hostile and the appropriate defensive response initiated.

If you want to test what happens at a major front line base when odd lights are shone into the base, go to PJHQ Northwood and try it. Not long ago some tree huggers did exactly that. They won't be trying it again.

The US learned its lesson the hard way - think what happned at Pearl Harbour. Remember the number of US embassies that have been attacked around the world. For those in charge of the twin bases to sit back and do nothing when unexplained beams of light were shone onto the WSA from something unknown hovering above, would have been untenable. They would have reacted. If they did nothing, then it was because there were no beams of light and nothing of concern happened over the bases - or it was because they were fully aware of what was going on. Further to that if a bogey had penetrated UK airspace to the point it could hover over the twin bases, the RAF would have been scrambled to intercept the moment Eastern Radar pinged it, Chrismas or not. This appears not to have happened. Consequently I doubt there was anything hovering over the WSA that was not already accounted for and fully identified.

[puddlepirate]

Just quickly and further to my last. The twin bases were not there to protect the UK. They were there as the first line of defence for the US itself. Therefore any attack on the bases - any USAFE bases - would almost certainly have been considered as a precursor to an attack on the US. Would any commanding officer of a USAFE base have sat back wondering what was going on whilst a potential attack was in progress? Not if he valued his rank or his freedom he wouldn't.

[pupil88]

Hi Puddlepirate,

The UFO strategy of "react by not reacting" has worked for nearly 28 years. I haven't heard of any light beam attacks, devastations or death associated with UFOs.Nor have I heard of invisibe craft spreading havoc. Your taking this too personal. A touch of paranoia is creeping in.

[puddlepirate]

the 'react by not reacting' scenario might work in dreamland but not in the real world. There were no liights beaming down.

[pupil88]

Hi Puddlepirate,

In 1954, I saw the thin light blue beam that Halt claimed came down and hit the ground before his team.I saw the thin light blue beam come from near the bottom of the craft, in the rear.. It only rose about eight feet at a 45% angle from the craft. I know that's real. The two major dimensions that we hold to, knowledge and power,had been usurped by an alien presence that had made these dimensions bend to its will. What I'd seen is IMPOSSIBLE! And that is what has entered our world.

[John Burroughs]

Puddlepirate where are you going with the last 2 post and was it you or someone else who saw waht you posted!!!

[pupil88]

[quote][/quote]Puddlepirate where are you going with the last 2 post and was it you or someone else who saw waht you posted!!!

JB...Are you directing this post to me?

[robert]

I am pretty sure JB is talking about you Pupil,

Answer him anyway, I am curious about 1954!

Robert

[John Burroughs]

I am talking about Pupil.

[puddlepirate]

Phew. That's good. Had me confused there for a minute!!

[pupil88]

In 1954, I was in the USAF stationed at Mildenhall(SAC) and encountered a UFO. I saw it transform before me with two alien entities assisting. I saw the pencil thin blue beam produce gases; a huge laser, an electromagnetic field that formed, and other oddities. All of this was taking place 20 to 50 feet in the air and about 120 to 140 feet from me. I recalled everything in slow motion.

I was working Security on the 4 PM to 12 AM shift.The next morning when I awoke, all my memory of what I saw was gone. Amnesia(?),... or the after-effects of the hot burning on the top of my head that drew my attention to the craft.

In 1995, in retirement, I used a meditation technique( which I've used effectively since the early fifties ) and some memory recollection techniques. I was finally able to bring up bits and pieces, pieces and bits of what I saw. Then, I'd see a scene in technicolor, a rarity for me, a true recognition of recall. This went on for six months. I had recollected most of it but there were two areas I couldn't break through. Finally, I let it go.

In 2006, while wintering in Florida with my wife, everything slowed down in my mind, and on two separate mornings as the light was coming up, I recollected the final pieces in technicolor. I didn't put anything on paper because I could remember it all. One of the final recollections was a light strobe that was mostly red and had some white. It displayed a super intensive movement. It slowed down and I saw it was a robot, leaving a disintegrated craft, and levitated to a newly formed object . I believe these entities can change into intensive light and movement.

My interest in RFI developed when I saw Lt. Col. Halt on the Larry King show talking about an exploding craft into five pieces. The similarities between what I had witnessed and RFI are quite pronounced.

My intention on this forum is to learn more ( I've learned so much) about the RFI UFOs.

[Observer]

Pupil88
There are are only two conclusions we can draw from the RFI, one, it was a man made event, two, it was not. It realy now depends on which camp you are in and what kind of investigation is needed for either scenario. Most of our efforts have been concentrated on man made, but if it is not then i suggest that there is not a lot we can do for obvious reasons unless of course you have some leads to follow. I take on board you Mildenhall sighting and its interesting that it had some similarity to the RFI, but are we ever going to move forward on this scenario?
Obs

[puddlepirate]

To follow on from the comments Obs made in his post...

One problem with the RFI and the various theories is to try and avoid making such evidence as there is - and there ain't much - fit a particular theory rather than letting the evidence determine the theory.

I don't know if anyone saw the Discovery Channel (UK) at around 9pm last night but Chas Halt was shown - and he stated that what he saw was a red light with a black centre and something that appeared to be like molten metal from a crucible coming off it. My immediate impression of what he described was of someone holding a marine distress flare. They come in various types but some I have seen and some I had on my own small yacht, give off a bright red light and when fired in a dark environment with even a gentle breeze blowing, have the appearance of what might best be described as 'molten metal dripping off it'. When viewed in a pitch black environment the light they create is roundish in shape, with the hand holding it appearing as a black centre. If you can get one from a yacht chandlers (the tube of the ones I had was coloured yellow with a short handle below) go somewhere really dark and try it for yourself (you usally twist the handle to activate them) and you'll see what I mean. They can also produce quite a bit of smoke which might not have been noticed amongst the trees. He also said it suddenly exploded into several balls of light. I'm not absolutely sure - I'd have to check the types of flares available in 1980 - but some flares do fire off small projectiles to attract attention, especially as a handheld flare would only be a few feet off the surface of the water and thus [potentially] easy to miss. I've actually seen kids holding flares like these in the streets of Reykjavik at midnight on New Year's Eve (while wearing safety goggles I hasten to add!)

[Robert McLean]

To follow on from the comments Obs made in his post...

One problem with the RFI and the various theories is to try and avoid making such evidence as there is - and there ain't much - fit a particular theory rather than letting the evidence determine the theory.

I don't know if anyone saw the Discovery Channel (UK) at around 9pm last night but Chas Halt was shown - and he stated that what he saw was a red light with a black centre and something that appeared to be like molten metal from a crucible coming off it.

In one interview Halt described this object as being small but bright when viewed by eye. The hollow centre effect was when viewed with the starlight scope:

HALT: OK, we're looking at the thing. We're probably about two to three hundred yards away. It looks like an eye winking at you. It’s still moving from side to side. And when you put the Starscope on it, it sorta seems a hollow center, a dar...dark center.

HALT: It's, it’s.

VOICE: . . . like a pupil.

HALT: Yeah, like a pupil of an eye looking at you, and winking. And it flashes so bright to the Starscope that, uh, it almost burns your eye.

(Halt's party had two starlight scopes and "VOICE" must have been using the other one at the same time)

The Starlight scopes were not designed to look at a really bright light. These effects Halt described were, in my opinion, most likely due to saturation of the optical amplifier in the starlight scope. There's a good wikipedia article that describes these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision_device#cite_note-15

Including a diagram that shows how the image intensity is amplified in a two-stage cascade of electrons in a vacuum tube:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Photomultiplier.svg

Electrons repell each other. If you have two many electrons in the cascade through the vacuum tube they will interfere with each other and start distoring the image. The hollow center and dripping molten metal effect was probably just such an image distortion.

If you look at old tv programs from the 70's and 60's, you often see strange effects near bright lights. Video cameras then were not solid state but used another type of vacuum tube image detector called vidicon tubes. There a good wikipedia article on these that describes how bright lights would leave a dark halo around the outside of bright objects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube

It really beggers belief the amount of money that has been spent on lavish TV documentaries without this story of Halt's being investigated properly. All it would take is one 2nd generation starlight scope and a few simple tests with small bright lights (or even the lighthouse - now there's a thought!), and I bet you'd get the same effects Halt described. Unfortunately, 2nd generation starlight scopes cannot be bought by members of the general public - they are still restricted. So it is not easy to do the experiment.

But the fact remains that starlight scopes were not intended to be used to image bright lights. They amplified the image intensity by 10's of thousands of times. It's really not surprising Halt saw strange effects using the starlight scope on a small bright object.

[robert]

Just a quick comment.

No reason at this stage whether we cannot remain open minded about the RFI.

As such I think if we have a foot in both camps IE Nut and Bolts man made explanation or an unexplained phenomena we will be able to take on board new information and try to keep filling in the gaps.

You Guys have been researching for some time now and there is plenty more to uncover. Seems to me we have moved foreword quite a way lately and are able to discount to a certain degree some theories that don't fit.

Doesn't really matter which camp you lean towards as long as we use first hand information to reinforce or discount theories as we go along.

It's an obvious comment I know but I'm just trying to make the point that we move forward by evaluation of the information we have rather than by making our own theories fit the 'crime' as it were of which everyone of us is naturally guilty by the nature of our initial stance.

Having said that I find Pupil's parallels with the RFI case interesting. I presume there was no technology in those days to explain the experience.

Sorry for the Eulogy guys.

Robert