Is there a timeline that fits all witness testimonies?
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:38 pmHi,
I am new to this forum so let me first introduce myself. I am Dutch so some of my English may seem a little odd.. I am not a “UFO researcher” (but I have become very interested in the topic) and I was certainly not involved in the incident.
I first heard of the Rendlesham incident when watching a DVD with several UFO documentaries a few years ago . It was a bonus DVD added to a DVD set about the moon landings. One of the UFO documentaries contained a short summary of the Rendlesham incident, among other cases.
I was completely amazed when I saw Jim Penniston tell about his encounter. I never knew the UFO evidence contained such strong cases. Here was a down-to-earth military guy giving a very factual and professional report of something that was clearly not human technology. I have a master’s degree in physics and though I made a career in information technology and management I can still tell that our current understanding of physics makes the take-off described here (completely silent and gone in the blink of an eye) impossible. We would simply need a new branch of physics to explain such a phenomenon.
I am not saying, however, that a scientific explanation will never be possible. At the fuzzy frontiers of physics new methods that enable us to travel faster than the speed of light are already emerging. We still have a lot to learn but some day we may be able to construct so-called metric drives like the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It would be very arrogant and short-sighted to say that others cannot travel to us because we cannot travel to them.
If Jim's testimony is accurate it clearly describes "extra-terrestrial" technology. And why on earth would he make it up? There is not much glory in being a UFO witness, on the contrary. Ridicule is your fate and Jim probably already knew this when he reported to his superiors the night it happened.
For me, the Rendlesham incident was a trigger to read a lot more on the subject of UFO’s. To my surprise there are quite some serious publications out there (besides the 95% of nonsense that is written about it).
One of my favorites is a book by Paul Hill, a well-respected NASA scientist that had a private interest in UFO’s (he was not allowed to speak of the subject as a NASA employee). He was a UFO witness himself. His book (“Unconventional Flying Objects – a scientific analysis”, ISBN 1-57174-027-9) was published posthumously. He has done a fantastic job trying to explain the appearance and flight characteristics of UFO’s (silent, very high speed, super fast accelerations and tight curves, no sonic boom, no burning up due to air friction, bright plasma-like appearance, strong electromagnetic fields and strong radiation). His explanation of these characteristics is backed up by solid mathematical proof and many case studies. It strongly suggests that we are dealing with – what we would call today – a metric drive (Paul describes it as a gravitational force field, which essentially is the same). It is interesting that the experiences of the Rendlesham witnesses when they approached the craft also seem to support the findings of Paul Hill.
Concerning the Rendlesham incident, I would very much like to resolve the paradox in the witness statements. To me this paradox is the contrast between their credibility, persistence, courage, and professionalism on one side and the fact that their stories do not seem to add up on the other side. On the first night John Burroughs seems to have witnessed something different than Jim Penniston. On the third night Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza seem to have witnessed something else than Charles Halt. I can imagine that people see different things when witnessing the same event. They may not agree on the size, the color or the exact shape of a craft. One might say it was midnight while the other thinks it was 2:00. But the current discrepancies in the witness statements are simply too big to be ignored.
This paradox has always been pretty frustrating to me, because it strongly affects the credibility of the case while the witnesses individually each make a very credible impression. How can this be?
I have a strong feeling that the solution may lie in the timeline of events. Recent evidence surely seems to support this. I wonder if we can recontruct a timeline that corresponds to the memories of each witness, allowing for “normal” differences in memory recollection but resolving the big differences we are stuck with today. If other people on this forum are interested please let me know.
I am new to this forum so let me first introduce myself. I am Dutch so some of my English may seem a little odd.. I am not a “UFO researcher” (but I have become very interested in the topic) and I was certainly not involved in the incident.
I first heard of the Rendlesham incident when watching a DVD with several UFO documentaries a few years ago . It was a bonus DVD added to a DVD set about the moon landings. One of the UFO documentaries contained a short summary of the Rendlesham incident, among other cases.
I was completely amazed when I saw Jim Penniston tell about his encounter. I never knew the UFO evidence contained such strong cases. Here was a down-to-earth military guy giving a very factual and professional report of something that was clearly not human technology. I have a master’s degree in physics and though I made a career in information technology and management I can still tell that our current understanding of physics makes the take-off described here (completely silent and gone in the blink of an eye) impossible. We would simply need a new branch of physics to explain such a phenomenon.
I am not saying, however, that a scientific explanation will never be possible. At the fuzzy frontiers of physics new methods that enable us to travel faster than the speed of light are already emerging. We still have a lot to learn but some day we may be able to construct so-called metric drives like the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It would be very arrogant and short-sighted to say that others cannot travel to us because we cannot travel to them.
If Jim's testimony is accurate it clearly describes "extra-terrestrial" technology. And why on earth would he make it up? There is not much glory in being a UFO witness, on the contrary. Ridicule is your fate and Jim probably already knew this when he reported to his superiors the night it happened.
For me, the Rendlesham incident was a trigger to read a lot more on the subject of UFO’s. To my surprise there are quite some serious publications out there (besides the 95% of nonsense that is written about it).
One of my favorites is a book by Paul Hill, a well-respected NASA scientist that had a private interest in UFO’s (he was not allowed to speak of the subject as a NASA employee). He was a UFO witness himself. His book (“Unconventional Flying Objects – a scientific analysis”, ISBN 1-57174-027-9) was published posthumously. He has done a fantastic job trying to explain the appearance and flight characteristics of UFO’s (silent, very high speed, super fast accelerations and tight curves, no sonic boom, no burning up due to air friction, bright plasma-like appearance, strong electromagnetic fields and strong radiation). His explanation of these characteristics is backed up by solid mathematical proof and many case studies. It strongly suggests that we are dealing with – what we would call today – a metric drive (Paul describes it as a gravitational force field, which essentially is the same). It is interesting that the experiences of the Rendlesham witnesses when they approached the craft also seem to support the findings of Paul Hill.
Concerning the Rendlesham incident, I would very much like to resolve the paradox in the witness statements. To me this paradox is the contrast between their credibility, persistence, courage, and professionalism on one side and the fact that their stories do not seem to add up on the other side. On the first night John Burroughs seems to have witnessed something different than Jim Penniston. On the third night Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza seem to have witnessed something else than Charles Halt. I can imagine that people see different things when witnessing the same event. They may not agree on the size, the color or the exact shape of a craft. One might say it was midnight while the other thinks it was 2:00. But the current discrepancies in the witness statements are simply too big to be ignored.
This paradox has always been pretty frustrating to me, because it strongly affects the credibility of the case while the witnesses individually each make a very credible impression. How can this be?
I have a strong feeling that the solution may lie in the timeline of events. Recent evidence surely seems to support this. I wonder if we can recontruct a timeline that corresponds to the memories of each witness, allowing for “normal” differences in memory recollection but resolving the big differences we are stuck with today. If other people on this forum are interested please let me know.