Visitors to UFO Religions
Follow on Twitter
Order The Facade!

Well, a couple days ago the world was told that a high-ranking UK military officer “admitted” that the famous Rendlesham event involved extraterrestrials.  This story and “admission” is actually a wonderful example of the disappointing level of “proof” works in the UFO investigative community. In short, we have only more piece of “evidence” driven by the psychological predisposition to attribute what we’ve never seen to aliens.  Here’s the story:

London, Jul 9 (ANI): For years, Britain’s biggest UFO mystery had been kept under wraps, but now an Air Force official has admitted that an “extra-terrestrial” craft did visit the air base at Rendlesham Forest in 1980.

Former Deputy Base Commander Col Charles Halt claimed that even though the incident was later covered up, “extra-terrestrials” had been the cause of the close encounter in Suffolk.

Halt had led a group of airmen who reported seeing a triangular UFO taking off into the air, leaving traces of radiation behind.

“The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since,” the Daily Star quoted Col Halt, now retired, as telling investigator Gary Heseltine.

“I believe the objects that I saw at close quarters were extra-terrestrial in origin,” he said.

He added that the Air Force later issued “dis-information” to throw the public off the scent.

His comments were hailed as “sensational” by former Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope.

“This may help us to finally solve Britain’s biggest UFO mystery,” Pope said.

“It blows the MoD’s line that these events had ‘no defence significance’ out of the water,” he added. (ANI)

The first (and really only) question we need to ask is this: WHAT WAS IT that drove Col. Halt to conclude that the craft he saw were extraterrestrial in origin? Was it scientific analysis of something the craft left behind, or perhaps a fragment of it? Was it some biological material analyzed by science? No. The answer is plainly stated by Col. Halt: ““The UFOs I saw were structured machines moving under intelligent control and operating beyond the realm of anything I have ever seen before or since.” In other words, since he had never before or since seen such craft, they MUST have been extraterrestrial.  Really?  There are no other possibilities? His “admission: is based on his own admitted absence of explanation, nothing more.  That isn’t science.

Anyone who has read Reich of the Black Sun by Joseph A. Farrell KNOWS there is at least one other possible interpretation of such craft. Farrell painstakingly details the very real post-German unification documentary evidence that shows (contrary to official history) the Nazis had a high level of competence in nuclear power and were already researching technologies associated with what would eventually become known as quantum physics.  Farrell skillfully explains how official history arose and how the new documents released after German unification show the official party line about Nazi nuclear capabilities to be a deliberate farce. This important book by Farrell was followed by two others (The SS Brotherhood of the Bell and Nazi International) that detail how the Nazi technology fell into the hands of other countries during the Cold War and, importantly, how it relates to the UFO issue.

Until someone can come along and refute Farrell’s expose of this new evidence, not found in any prior work on German wingless/saucer technology, reports such as the new Rendlesham revelation can be filed into your “more cultural acclimation for ET visitation” folder.  With Farrell’s work, the burden of proof is now squarely on those who insist on an ET hypothesis for UFOs (and even on those who see only a spiritual explanation).

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “The Psychology of the Rendelsham Revelation”

  • Cris Putnam says:

    I agree with Dr Heiser in that a “machines moving under intelligent control” does not lead to an extraterrestrial conclusion by default. The tendency toward hyperbole in ufology doesn’t foster credibility.

    His testimony leads me to ponder if he saw the remote control spy drones that we are currently using in Afghanistan. Yet the military did dismiss his testimony – explaining the event as a light house beacon. If it was known terrestrial technology seems like they would have informed their own people and contained the event. Instead they insulted their own men and issued an obviously absurd cover. Why? It’s hard to believe they are that stupid.

    Disinformation? For who and what purpose?

    The documentary Out of the Blue has a good treatment on this case. My favorite part is Lord Norton’s quip about how either “high ranking personnel on a nuclear facility were hallucinating or that the base was compromised by an outside aircraft… either option being alarming enough to be of defense interest.”

    In the final analysis, the fact that the military offered such a spurious cover story is more intriguing than the anecdotal evidence.

  • aeneas says:

    I’m surprised that nobody has commented on this post so far. So I will! Are you thinking Mike that the UFO in this case might have been a Nazi technology aircraft used by Russia or America? Problem there is that some of the reports had the UFO doing some really weird stuff that does not make any sense if it was a test flight—like when it split up into pieces of light etc. Unless it was a test flight that went awry. Also, what about the strange symbols reported by one of the first witnesses of the craft? Why would a terrestrial craft need, or even, want those etched on its surface? The whole incident seems to me more of a paranormal occurrence.

  • MSH says:

    @Cris Putnam: thanks for this — good input.

  • MSH says:

    @aeneas: I’m more targeting the line of logic, so common in ufology: “I couldn’t make that / I can’t explain that, so it must be extraterrestrial.” Regarding the “dissembling” of the craft – that either happened, or a visual image / effect of that happened. I don’t doubt the witness testimony, but testimony is an effect or about an effect; it isn’t a cause, assuming the event was real. Vallee has some thoughts on this event in one of his books; I’ll try to find that to see if has an interesting take on it.

  • aeneas says:

    I understand your main thesis here—unconventional flying craft does not necessarily mean ET or spiritual powers. I completely agree. I have no problems believing in top secret test flights of terrestrial craft. I have read Nick Redfern’s “Body Snatchers,” and I think he lays out a good case there about America obtaining Nazi/Japanese technology. However, if witness testimony is taken seriously in the Rendelsham incident, it is hard to reconcile the events described there with the even slightly more advanced technology that might have come into the hands of America after WWII. I have not read Joseph A. Farrell’s work, but I have hard time believing that any Western powers now, let alone in the 40’s, possess craft that can do the fantastic things described by witnesses at Rendelsham. But I suppose I can’t rule it out completely. As you say, what they saw was not necessarily the cause itself. Their perception of what happened may have been different from what really happened, at least up to a certain degree. One last thing, I mentioned in my last post the mysterious markings claimed by one of the Rendelsham witnesses to be on the craft. His claims may or may not be true, but it does bring up an interesting point. It was claimed that mysterious, hieroglyphic type markings were found on debris at Roswell and similar markings were reported by witnesses at the Kecksburg UFO incident too. Does Farrell’s work address these markings at all? I don’t recall Redfern ever offering an explanation about that point in his work but maybe I just don’t recall. I can understand why Nazis might have put ancient symbols on their craft, but why would they keep appearing on American top secret craft—unless America is still flying the actual craft built by the Nazis?

  • skypoetone says:

    It beggars belief to the extreme how far officials will go to deny what was clearly seen AND touched that night in the forest. There are too many questions unanswered – like what happened to the movie film taken of the incident? – The photographs? The reports, etc? And now, today, I read another crazy piece of misinformation, that the object in the forest that night was “An Apollo space rocket capsule” apparently seen chained to a helicopter that broke loose??? The lighthouse story failed – the burning manure story failed – now this – Good Heaven’s, what next!

  • MSH says:

    You are aware that Vallee was not impressed with the Rendlesham incident – ? He’d hardly be classified as an unreasonable skeptic or someone who was a poor investigator.

Leave a Reply