Boring true validation:
I was stationed at a base near Cambridge in the very early '80s. I met a British officer on a tennis court near my home who, upon learning I was an American Airman, asked if I had heard of the recent events at Bentwaters. I said no and asked if he would breach his "official secrets act", per se. He refused to go any further. Now it makes sense. Maybe.
Something happened for sure but it may not have been UFOs per say. It might have been a mind control experiment as the men all said they were interrogated and pumped full of drugs. Many of the men involved have made really insane comments and claims over the years. Jim Penniston is perhaps the worst of them. He has changed his story so many times and he keeps adding details to it over the years. His whole claim of "binary codes" from time travelers from the future sounds like a cheesy Saturday Syfy movie. It's pretty much been proven that he continued to write more binary code in his little notebook over the years and continued to lie and say he did it on the night of the sighting.
shareI've always been fascinated by the military. About 90% of them are under 25. Most reach high NCO rank before 30. Officers are similar, but high ranks can be old men, but that is so rare that age comprises a very small percentage of the whole. This makes for a very susceptible group Led by those who are used to lying in order to shape young people's reality. Air Force set higher standards of education than other branches, but inexperience is inexperience.
UFO implies unknown. Delusion is possible even without deception and drugs, but the military would only cloud an issue if the issue was needing to be clouded. Whatever it was, it's no more mysterious than Area 51 and Roswell. Consider the sources. When they say that truth is stranger than fiction, I'm sure they are including the cheesy fiction to which you refer. No matter how unbelievable the explanation of witnesses to an event, I believe the truth of that event is even more unbelievable. What I find hard to encompass is the fact that solid matter contains mostly empty space held together by gravitational forces and energy lattices and only appear to be solid because we can't see the details of reality.
This kind of perspective has a tendency to dim the cynicism that comprises the jaded nature of the typical disbeliever in my experience but never seems to reach the truly convinced denizen of our world.
So, just under 10 unrelated men, of completely different ranks, and ages, all conspired together to bluff the 'Rendlesham files', without so much as a physical 'tell' between them. What's more - has anyone who knows anyone of those men (even from school etc.) ever come forward to state that he/she happens to know one of our subjects, and knows same to be an incorrigible bluffer/story-teller? Why not?
'Sure' they bluffed it...
Granted, you cynics are probably on the money with this criticism: the binary code kerfuffle could well be the product of either false memory syndrome &/or mixing up hypnosis with fact. In fairness, cynics are indeed more likely than not, to be right to that extent; that is, on the said, single criticism. Such notwithstanding, to say that the whole recount falls on that one, relatively trivial inconsistency...!?
Just before you denounce me as another 'believer', doubt not that I could show you holes, inconsistencies and any matter of implausibilities within almost any episode of Ghost Adventures, My Haunted House, My Ghost Story etc.; nevertheless, it is hard to doubt, on considering *all* the given facts and statements (that is, as submitted, in total, by each and every one of those 'Rendlesham' men) that they experienced anything but something most extraordinarily unusual on those two nights. Any amount of vague criticisms don't exactly uphold the cynic's case.
Then again, if one is unwilling even to accept the very possibility of alien craft's visiting occasionally this planet, on their travels across the universe, then 'The Rendlesham Files' must make no sense whatsoever, to such persons.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
So, just under 10 unrelated men, of completely different ranks, and ages, all conspired together to bluff the 'Rendlesham files', without so much as a physical 'tell' between them. What's more - has anyone who knows anyone of those men (even from school etc.) ever come forward to state that he/she happens to know one of our subjects, and knows same to be an incorrigible bluffer/story-teller? Why not?
'Sure' they bluffed it...
Given our past discussions 😉😎, I'm sure you most probably realise by now, that whenever you raise a wild allegation such as e.g., when you're specifically speaking about those military men who appeared on the Rendlesham Files, "almost all of the men were drugged up" - while most folk may accept same - without any supporting factual reference - the person to whom you're responding, would definitely appreciate at least some verifiable cross evidence in support of that most extraordinary allegation.
Otherwise you might as well allege, without any supporting evidence, that the two officers entered that forest, that Xmas night, likely ate some wild mushrooms, came back to the mess room, shared said fungi with the other officers, a Colonel at the base etc., and... before you know it, they're all going on about UFO's appearing!!
Does such a ludicrous possibility really add up in your mind?
As for the binary code story, I already conceded that it was dubious (as I don't like it either), but I did at least offer the probability above, that such was arguably down to either false memory syndrome, or mixing up hypnosis with fact. Nevertheless, neither of which makes the whole story crash down, as you seem to believe.
That is, the binary code stuff was by no means a sine qua non of the UFO's appearing, nor (for that matter) almost everything else which was recounted, within that episode, which is why it was by no means indicative of an allegedly 'made up' story; And that is also likely the very reason why, PW producers chose to downplay that element of Penniston's version of events, within that particular episode.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
When I wrote that the men were drugged up, I did not mean they were abusing drugs. I mean what they have admitted happened, that they were interrogated and given unknown cocktails of drugs to the point where fantasy and reality blended. Most of them have admitted they were drugged. Some of them have admitted they can't distinguish between what really happened vs. what they hallucinated. That's why I wrote that it has all the hallmarks of a mind control experiment because such involved using drugs on people to produce a similar result.
share... and ...when this respondent simply asked for some supporting factual evidence (aka corroborative proof) for that most extraordinary allegation...?
Otherwise, your allegations, concerning *all* the men's state of mind, with respect, don't amount to anything.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
Have you not heard a single interview on this subject? The men have admitted to such on multiple occasions.
I don't know why it's always the horribly ignorant that shout, PROVIDE PROOF!, when the very basic of Google searches produces numerous examples of such.
In this video below, Col. Charles Halt discusses the drugging of the witnesses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRetv8-lS18
Call me 'ignorant'!? Take a little 'bounce' of this fact of life, then: Those who are smarter than you, look for evidence to support wild allegations.
That's not ignorance. That's called refusing to be a sheep. And I'm nobody's sheep.
You can BS the sheep. I'm sure that's your stock in trade. But pssst - you can't BS those who are smarter than you.
That's also why some folk don't accept BS, because they look for evidence. What you wrote above was complete BS: a total distortion of the facts in yet another thoroughly unintelligent attempt to discredit all the men who came forward in what came to be known as the Rendlesham Files.
Col Halt did not state that on either of the nights when UFO's were reported was sodium Pentothal used. That is fact. It was actually used many days after, around the time of the hypnosis sessions. Too bad you don't bother checking your facts carefully before you call any others 'ignorant'! It must Sound better for you to put forward the claptrap that they were all 'drugged up', when the UFO sighting was reported. Putting out BS like that doesn't make you look too smart now, does it?
At the introduction to that interview, the narrator states, at approximately 1.12, and I quote verbatim: ""You may have heard of the Rendlesham Forest incident. That's pretty much, arguably, the best UFO case ever. When we had Nick Pope on, he feels that way..."
The interviewer does NOT imply at ANY point, that the Rendlesham Forrest Incident is BS, or falls apart, for anything like the reasons you state! It actually beggars belief that that's the best link you've got to support your nonsense argument! Seriously!? Where, one wonders, did you even learn to support your invented arguments in such a manner?
I'm left wondering - how many others believe on the strength of this Sly vaping guy's link, that the Rendlesham files completely falls apart, for the reasons he put forward above? And moreover, why do you now believe he proved his point, even moderately well?
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
Your reading comprehension and overall mental capacities are lacking. Col. Halt said he has spoken with numerous witnesses involved who all admitted that they were interrogated and drugged, causing them to confuse fantasy with reality to the point where some of the can't differentiate what really happened from fantasy or hallucination.
share"Your reading comprehension and overall mental capacities are lacking" Is that really supposed to be funny?
I admire your cheek though. And, when you do get it right, which you do on occasion, it's worth reading. But the majority of the above, is a reflection more of your mental faculties, than of anything else.
-
For anyone else:
I must sincerely ask again, if anyone else feels that the sly vaping guy is right in his extraordinary contentions above, please do tell me exactly how he is right, and quite how or why I've somehow missed the points he's made above. I'd actually love to read a *good* defence of his position, particularly as I don't believe such is even possible. TYVM
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
I must sincerely ask again, if anyone else feels that the sly vaping guy is right in his extraordinary contentions above, please do tell me exactly how he is right, and quite how or why I've somehow missed the points he's made above. I'd actually love to read a *good* defence of his position, particularly as I don't believe such is even possible. TYVM
Teaching me about 'logical discource'[sic] when any smart person can see what you're really up to, above. Your fallacious and 'unsupported by any facts' argument exists solely in your mind, which is why I'm interested if there is anyone else who feels you are speaking sense.
And what happens instead? When your argument is flawed you attack the arguer.
Fact.
Speaking of which, the facts speak for themselves: So please do let others be the judge of who speaks most sense, and moreover drops the fewest red herrings, half truths, non sequitors, and ad hominems above.
Enjoy ;-)
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
tl:dr
I posted evidence. You have yet to do so. I win. You loose.
No: You only posted irrelevant evidence which doesn't support your argument. And even if it did somehow support your argument, your argument would be an appeal to authority, which is no less fallacious than most of the rubbish you've written above. All is, just as you've done before. So you lose: Again.
PS - and it wasn't even a 'nice try'...
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
Yawn. Any intelligent person reading this thread realizes that you can not post any proof to support your claims. Meanwhile, I have.
shareIt becomes more and more plausible that possible disinformation campaigns extend even to internet message boards such as these.
I don't know how many similar "discussions" I've seen like these on IMDB where it seems the main intent of posters like S_V_G is simply to mock/ridicule/discredit/dismiss.
It's one thing to disagree about opinions on subject matter such as this, but when posters like S_V_G start going so far as to publicly imply that anyone who even considers that events like this may actually be happening are crazy, delusional, illogical, irrational, etc, etc, etc,....well, it simply seems overboard and unnecessary.
You can disagree sure, but no need to be a dick about it.
Full disclosure - I arrived here because S_V_G started making the same sorts of unproven statements/allegations in a thread I started. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/board/thread/251032870?d=251110404#251110404
I agree that there will be some that people like S_V_G can influence with their posts, but they never seem to want to admit that not EVERYone is going to be the droids they're looking for (to agree with the opinions they're promoting).
Ultimately, they just come across as that kind of person who is in a position to be privy ("in the know") to information that the general populace isn't aware of, think they're smarter than everyone else, and get off trying to get people to question themselves when they know those people are actually correct.
It's called an abuse of power...and it happens all the time. (I've even seen it occur by moderators on internet message boards).
My only point was that because I heard about the event within 2-3 years, in England, and by someone who had no connection to the participants that it makes it more plausible that "something" happened at RAF Bentwaters. This guy seemed to think that because I was American Military that I might know through channels. He wanted info from me.
Also, misinformation goes both directions. I knew a FBI agent who admitted to knowing someone who worked for the government and it was this person's job to act crazy while telling detailed stories about UFOs and the Occult just to make it seem that only cracked pots and liars were witness to all these events.
I find it humorous that S_V_G might be a snickering moniker of someone who would associate themselves with "The Smoking Man". But then, WhoToTrust sounds like "Do You Believe?", so it's all a big Catch 22.
by TMIGuy » I find it humorous that S_V_G might be a snickering moniker of someone who would associate themselves with "The Smoking Man". But then, WhoToTrust sounds like "Do You Believe?", so it's all a big Catch 22.
Two things:
I didn't misunderstand your point. I just didn't reply to your specific point which was made in my thread, giving me the inherent right to reply to your post, reiterating what my original intent was and giving you your forum for reply.
Second, I apologise if I seemed to portray you in any manner. I was just allowing for the doubt of anyone who expresses any opinion. I was saying that we are all caught in a Catch 22 situation when reading books, discussing science or historical events because we are not witnesses or omniscient to events and reality. Your moniker (seems to be) a great example of exactly what I mean. I enterpret it to mean "who can one trust?" which has a similarity to belief itself. I also state that I cannot trust my own eyes to see the electromagnetic interactions between subatomic particles, but that I do choose to believe that they exist. I also choose to disbelieve the commonly held theory of evolution as well as creationism.
I respect all your points.
Fair enough. And in both our defenses, my original use of "WhoToTrust" on another previous message board was followed by a "?", meant to convey exactly what you described, but for some reason the IMDB system did not include it in the sign up process.
As a result, some posters think I'm saying that I'm the person they should trust, when the suggestion is to continue questioning everyone.
I'm inclined to believe the account given in this episode because why would decorated military men lie about something like this and risk their careers and reputations?
share