UFO free speech for all & RFI talk September 10 2011

[larry warren]

yep i will be at the 2011 event, as i too want to hear the locals experiances circa 1980, at the dec event i was asked to go up, i did and kept it to under 5 minutes , just a thanks sort of thing, at this one im going to say what needs to be said and what keeps getting cut out of any radio show ive done as of late, further some very interesting info i learned from friends of gordo williams, the ugly backstory to this toxix thing, the politics of it and the background of certain picts, also how certain parties put a price tag on the whole deal from the start and continue to do so ! last, you will know that i never called myself art wallace nor did bustinza ask me to tell his story, want proof on all the above, come on down on the tenth of sept ! might be a kick in the ass for ya ! cheers

[John Burroughs]

Larry the day you want to talk about what happened to Bustinza and I on the 3rd night with Halts party behind us is the day i will fly over and join you on the stage and tell all. Maybe you could get Bustinza to join us would make for a very interesting night..

[webplodder]

I think the phrase 'on stage' tells us a lot about what motivates the so-called 'witnesses' to an an event that never happened.

[Matt Lyons]

Hi Webplodder,
There are no egos here, just a search for the truth, whatever your opinion.
The stage is just appropriate setting, quite honestly, if we all sat down in a circle with a cup of tea and photocopied sheets instead of overhad projectors, that would do fine. This hall is just ideal and close to the forest, if I was putting something on, I'd book this place, it ticks all the right boxes, UFO or otherwise.

Are you coming along to give your answers on why the RFI is a non-event or hoax?

Regards,

Matt

[webplodder]

Matt, the fundamental problem with all UFO cases is that the evidence can always be explained in more than one way and we have never seen any case that proves the existence of ETs. Hearsay, hoaxes, misidentifications, psychological aberrations or even downright lying can always be pointed to as the simplest explanations for such cases because without more solid evidence there is no reason to believe anything else. You can talk about the RFI till the cows come home but without some more compelling evidence is a pointless exercise.

Matt, don't you think that after all the years that a supposed ET presence has existed somebody would have produced something more convincing than has, thus far, been seen? It's all just a myth perpetuated to sell books, gain attention and generally profit from. There are also sad people who seek to explain their personal problems or seek to gain attention by claiming they have been the subject of alien abductions and who are exploited by unscrupulous individuals who are out to make money. Ufology is a social phenomena, not a scientific one. Somebody once said that the bigger the lie the more people are apt to believe it. This is no truer of anything else in life than the UFO movement.

[Matt Lyons]

Hi Webplodder,
A big fat juicy mothership going beep beep whilst hovering above the Whitehouse, tickets please?
I can't think of anyone that would argue with that scenario.

However, in UFO reports, unless witnessing one personally, we do not get to witness the UFO or other anomalous event, we report and explore on those accounts.
Are you seriously saying that this whole board is made up of cash hungry book and film authors and pundits? You have witnesses posting to the actual event that were there. have you thoroughly read all their posts of their accounts and their experiences since you signed up?
95% of all UFO sightings are explainable and the investigation of them and awareness in research has risen dramatically in the last 50 years or so. However, there are some cases which do defy an explanation by rational and established scientific means.
This case has too many witnesses and although accounts vary, there is one thing they would all agree on both major nights sightings, that something highly strange, anomolous and unexplainable by rational means (within the boundaries of military training to cope with a multitude of different situations) occured and there are too many local independent witnesses to anomolous events.
Have you read Left at East Gate by Larry and Peter yet, or perhaps Jenny Randles:Time Storms, Albert Budden: Electric UFOs or Paul Devereuax's Earth Light Mysteries?
If not, go back, read and hopefully think again or are you someone else that needs the keys to Orford Ness lighthouse?
Well, are you coming along on the 10th September, perhaps you could meet Larry Warren and put him right on everything?

Regards,

Matt

[Observer]

I think Webplodder was making a general point about UFO cases and not specifically the Rendleswham forest incident. However, he 'suggests' that the RFI could well be in in this general catigory and nothing wrong in saying that.

We have not got any nearer finding out what happened [if any thing did happen] in 30 years. So if these new witnesses who are going to be brought on stage with new evidence at Woodbridge, hooray, I hope they give the definitive answer to the mystery, well I hope its all published here on the forum so we can all have a read and the News media informed.

I would also like to invite the scores of USAF personell who were allegedly out in the forest searching for some thing on the 3rd night to come on the forum with their story, perhaps Jim, John and Larry could invite them to say a word, they must know who some of them are.
Matt, I have read all those books including Jenny Randle's 'Skycrash'. I'm sure you are aware that only a couple of years ago
She announced that "I no longer believe anything of significance happened at Rendlesham". Many people have tried to twist those words into other meanings but after I asked her, she was adament that was what she meant but would not elaborate further.

I would love this incident to have been an extra terrestrial visit, and that is my honest opinion, but, there is not one shred of hard evidence to say it was.

Obs

[webplodder]

I would also like to invite the scores of USAF personell who were allegedly out in the forest searching for some thing on the 3rd night to come on the forum with their story, perhaps Jim, John and Larry could invite them to say a word, they must know who some of them are.

Observer, isn't it a bit strange that the only testimony we get regarding the RFI is from a few people who seem to be talking not only on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of many other individuals who alledgedly experienced the same phenomena but who seem reticent to come forward to substantiate the claims? Could it be that they do not share the same interpretation as the principle witnesses and prefer to keep quiet about it?

[webplodder]

Hi Webplodder,

This case has too many witnesses and although accounts vary, there is one thing they would all agree on both major nights sightings, that something highly strange, anomolous and unexplainable by rational means (within the boundaries of military training to cope with a multitude of different situations) occured and there are too many local independent witnesses to anomolous events.

Matt

Where are they?

[webplodder]

Well, are you coming along on the 10th September, perhaps you could meet Larry Warren and put him right on everything?

Regards,

Matt

Fact is, Matt, that I cannot prove there was no ET presence over those nights but then there is also no compelling proof that the opposite case is true so where does that leave us? Just arguing.

[Matt Lyons]

Hi Webplodder/Observer,
The whole UFO subject is a difficult and broad 'church'. You have the ultra sceptics at one end and the pro-ETH believers at the other. The best way forward is to be balanced and scientifically evaluative where ever possible. Some may argue that we are lucky to even get the servicemen that have come forward so far and whatever happened out there, more civilians and new people are coming forward. If the impatience at ten years after the event was enough to make people throw in the towel, we may not have had additional material that has come to light since 1990.
I wouldn't say this is an argument, but whether the sceptic hat or the ETH believer one is worn, the things that will prevent more answers from coming forward will be to stop researching, investigating and listening with an open mind. In all progressive enquiries into a UFO case, sometimes you get lucky and can tell people it is a satellite in a day, some cases take a few weeks and might produce a theory such as earthlights or miltary activity, but there are plenty of cases which are still open and running well beyond ten years.
So webplodder, are you coming along on the 10th Septmeber, there are new accounts?

Regards,

Matt

[Observer]

Matt

Of course there are lots of 'unexplained' phenomena seen in the sky and on the ground and a few remain unexplained. Quite often basic science will identify said object/pehenonema but in the case of the Rendlesham Forest Incident, there is no scientific evidence to tell us what it was, if 'it' was there at all. The time span alone must say that its highly unlikely anything of significance happened. If it was of such significance and a ground breaking event, I should think knowing human nature, some one somewhere would have gone public by now in a big way either for mony and notoriety, but that just hasn't happened. Humans just can't keep secrets, well not for long.

I agree that its best to keep an open mind until there is enough evidence to put you in a certain direction, but right now there is no hard evidednce. Apart from our witnesses initial statements, the RFI has filled up with anecdotes, hearsay and plain old make believe. Cut all this crap out and do serious research and investigation. Look more at what went on around this incident and elsewhere on base rather than the incident itself, you may find some clues.
As I said i remain 'sceptically' open minded but its a shame more people are not the same. The forum could be a great place for proper research but its difficult when you have people with hidden agendas. I have no hidden agenda, just curiosity.

Obs

[webplodder]

I think the opportunity has been missed in approaching the RFI as a kind of 'CSI' case because it has been so long since the original incident that whatever physical evidence did exist has disappeared. There was no proper scientific investigation at the time - just informal attempts to make sense of what occurred. We have conflicting accounts about the three impressions made in the ground; some said they were simply rabbit scratchings, others, that they were triangular equidistant impressions of a 'craft's' landing gear. Same with the marks on nearby trees the 'maneuvering' alien ship was supposed to have made. An alternative version is that they were actually made by foresters, so it is not surprising many people just dismiss such UFO cases as silly. How can you make any sense of such confusing accounts?

[Observer]

It was deemed unnecessary at the time to investigate an alleged incident to any great degree, The Suffolk Police thought this as did the USAF. Aggreed, there was vertually no physical evidence to go on if they had decided to use forensics.

So all you are left with is peoples stories and anecdotes about an incident that may have been a case of misidentification.

The only area left where further research can be carried out is talking to new people and weighing up what they have to say.
Currently, most of what we have been told is contradictory, so I would be looking for new witnesses who were/are not involved with the incident but were based at RAF Woodbridge during that period.

Obs

[IanR]

It was deemed unnecessary at the time to investigate an alleged incident to any great degree, The Suffolk Police thought this as did the USAF.

The USAF passed it on to the MoD, of course. The MoD were the ones who decided there was no need for further investigation, and we now know why they made this decision
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/trefgarne.htm

Ian

[Observer]

Like I said look at what went on around the incident rather than the incident itself, that is where the clues are.
Look at how the various authorities reacted and their actions, very revealing.

oBS

[David Bryant]

Full details of next month's conference are on my website:
http://www.chilling-tales.com/page64.html
Should be a good evening!

[Gordy]

It was deemed unnecessary at the time to investigate an alleged incident to any great degree, The Suffolk Police thought this as did the USAF.

The USAF passed it on to the MoD, of course. The MoD were the ones who decided there was no need for further investigation, and we now know why they made this decision
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/trefgarne.htm

Ian

According to Nick Pope, what happened at Rendlesham Forest in Dec 1980 was "of extreme defence significance",. I put that line in quotation marks because that is what he actually said in his speech on December 28 2010. Yes he may well have just said that without meaning it, who knows. I get the impression that despite these events occuring on British soil, the US military, NSA and the other US agencies were calling the shots, not the MoD.

According to Adrian Bustinza, in an interview with Larry Fawcett in 1984 (full details of this interview can be found in Larry & Peter's book Left at East Gate) there were British Police at road blocks in December 1980 together with US officers, with this in mind, and the fact that we have heard from British civilians who were stopped at road blocks is it unreasonable to conclude the British Police are being economical with the truth?

[David Bryant]

Good points, Gordy!
Wouldn't it be terrific if old Ian found another hobby like badger baiting or hare coursing instead of lurking ready to snipe on EVERY UFO website? LOL!