Comments on: The Psychology of the Rendelsham Revelation

By: MSH

MSH — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:06:48 +0000

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.

By: skypoetone

skypoetone — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:40:00 +0000

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!

By: aeneas

aeneas — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:54:06 +0000

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?

By: MSH

MSH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:22:52 +0000

@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.

By: MSH

MSH — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:16:42 +0000

@Cris Putnam: thanks for this — good input.

By: aeneas

aeneas — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:04:50 +0000

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.

By: Cris Putnam

Cris Putnam — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:33:58 +0000

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.