UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 24

Re: Rendlesham Stage 1 Conclusions

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:51:26 EST
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 05:37:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Rendlesham Stage 1 Conclusions


 >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:59:04 EST
 >Subject: Rendlesham Stage 1 Conclusions
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >Dear All,

 >As expected, the last few days have thrown up significant heat,
 >and some light, on the ongoing Rendlesham debate.

 >It would be foolish to go into every comment made but here goes:

 >1 - We have now completed Stage 1 whereby certain information
 >has been made public. The attitudes of the Ufologists were
 >entirely predictable; whatever we produce will be derided. This
 >makes no difference to our continued efforts re; Rendlesham.

Naturally a person would realize that the attitudes of the skeptics
are also entirely predictable.

1) It absolutly can't be therefor it isn't.

2) All evidence, whether it comes up now or years in the future
all point to the existance of some "hoax" "misidentification of
natural phenomona" "stars" "balloons" "lighthouses" "birds" or
other such.

3) Should the witness, while attempting to describe what he or
she saw, use a term similar to some proasic term, (say stars)
then we are told the witness was misidentifying stars.

4) If a witness were to say "I saw a meteor blazing through the
sky." then the testimony is true and correct. If a witness says
"I saw a UFO.." we are then told how he/she really saw something
with a proasic explaination

 >2 - Ufology does not appear to be able to see outside its own
 >bubble. As things currently stand, our view is that the UFO

Nor do the skeptics

 >incident/s at Rendlesham over the Christmas 1980 period were
 >quite possibly _incidental_,_not_ central, to what followed.
 >Much of James Easton's research has been directed towards
 >witness statements, what s/he said and what he thinks s/he
 >actually saw. Some of this is very valuable and, despite his
 >debunking Penniston, Burroughs et al and writing about tractors

Its been alleged the Easton selectively quotes witness
statements. Some people have posted excerpts showing Eastons
selective quoting and the actual quotes on this list as I recall

 >in fields (there is a certain irony in the tractors story but
 >not right now....!) being responsible for the UFO incident/s he
 >still clings to the belief that something UFO-related happened,
 >if I've understood him correctly. He says that we should not
 >ignore the UFO sightings, despite having explained many of them
 >himself.

 >3 - People should not be so afraid of new theories and evidence.
 >There may not be one all encompassing explanation for what we
 >call the Rendlesham Incident.

People have been breathlessly waiting for an all encompassing
explaination for Rendlesheim...and so far the skeptics and some
of the so called UFOlogists have been asleep at the switch so to
speak.

<snip>

 >5 - Many things trouble us including the allegations that
 >Margaret Thatcher indicated that UFOs were a big issue and/or
 >that she knew anything about Rendlesham. We have a letter, dated
 >12th November 2001, from the former PM's Personal Assistant,
 >telling us that, having worked with Mrs. Thatcher for some time,
 >she is often heard to say, "you must get your facts right."
 >Furthermore, we are told that, "You should not read much into"
 >the statements about getting facts right and "You can't tell the
 >people." For Georgina Bruni to suggest that Mrs. Thatcher/her PA
 >"would say that wouldn't she" means that, in effect, Thatcher
 >cannot be relied upon to tell the truth in the first place!
 >Georgina's use of Margaret Thatcher is, therefore, is NOT
 >justified.

Did the former PMs assistant "deny" in writing the context of the book
and or Rendlesheim?

 >6 - Given the vague and almost meaningless comments made by Mrs.
 >T we are interested to know rather more about the circumstances
 >in which these comments were made, times, dates, places etc. As
 >a journalist I would have taken either shorthand notes or made a
 >recording, especially if I was going to ask specifically about
 >UFOs.

No more vague and meaningless then any politicians speech, say Tony
Blair, GW, or Clinton.

 >Georgina Bruni, who I quite like actually but who keeps claiming
 >that I am attacking her, has made much of Mrs. T's comments and
 >wrote to me suggesting that Macmillan, her publishers, must have
 >been satisfied that she (Georgina) had accurately reflected her
 >conversation with the former PM. Our view is that Macmillan,
 >like other publishers, are only concerned to make money, to sell
 >books. They are not taking a position as regards the evidence,
 >only seeking to maximise sales via spin and clever marketing. I
 >don't blame them.

Actually publishers are quite sensitive to things that go into
books. If the former PM hasn't denied the comment and or context
in public it says alot about the truthfulness of the comment.

 >7 - Furthermore, Mrs. Thatcher's comments, as limited and as
 >vague as they were, are being taken as seriously as Ronald
 >Reagan's public comments about "an alien invasion" made during
 >the 1980s. It is doubtful that he had any hard data on aliens

This comment assumes facts not yet in evidence.

 >and, if we are to believe the cover up and conspiracy merchants,
 >wouldn't have blabbed in public anyway. Nevertheless, his
 >comments were typical of the man; written for effect and high
 >drama, trying to explain difficult concepts (nations working
 >together) in simple terms. He probably didn't even write the
 >words himself. His comments about "aliens" do no mean that
 >either he or his British opposite number were the thirteenth and
 >fourteenth members of MJ-12!

 >8 - It seems, from some quarters, that people are having a
 >problem finding data on nuclear accidents of any magnitude in
 >the UK. That is because much of the data has been in dispute
 >since the industry began in the mid 1950s. Some has been buried,
 >some covered up.

 >Nuclear power is and has been a much hotter political potato
 >than anyone is giving credit for and people forget the symbiotic
 >relationship between nuclear weaponry and nuclear power
 >generation. They also forget the political realities and
 >paranoia of the Cold War, which many of us are convinced had a
 >bearing on UFOs. The Hilda Murrell case and many others strongly
 >suggest that we are in no way party to the facts in relation to
 >the nuclear industry. In any case, people who have worked within
 >the industry have been the most dangerous to the industry in
 >highlighting its safety failures.

 >9 - We are not saying, and neither are our sources, that this
 >was a 'major leak' of material. It didn't have to be to set
 >alarm bells ringing. Simply because there is no official
 >documentation (or appears not to be) is neither here nor there.

Nor, does it appear that these sources are any more reliable
then so called intelligence community sources (whose information
is instantly vomited in the public arena on the Art Bell show by
researchers) who are billed in such terms as top drawer, totally
reliable, everything they say is truth, and so on. Point is by
your own admission what these people are telling you and
claiming apparently cannot be independently documented or
verified thus far.

<snip>

 >10 - Related to the above are other obvious nuclear-type
 >incidents, like Cash Landrum. Not the same we know, but it still
 >remains within the UFO literature, despite the fact that this
 >was not an "alien" incident. Furthermore, there are other

Nor do we actually and truly know that it was some kind of
"nuclear incident" "spy sat reentry" "test of some advanced
technology" and so on.

<snip>

 >12 - Despite the Doty affair and the scandals surrounding the
 >Bennewitz/Moore/MJ-12 hoax business we find Ufologists in the UK
 >denying that AFOSI, stationed here and with plenty of power
 >within its remit, could have had anything to do with
 >disinformation at Rendlesham. This is, quite frankly the worst
 >kind of armchair BS. Not only do people NOT know what AFOSI was
 >doing for sure, but they simply ignore the fact that the same
 >agency was using and abusing Ufology and Ufologists during the
 >period we are interested in, 1980-1983.

Likewise you have no solid, verifiable information that the
AFOSI was conducting some kind of disinformation program in the
UK.

 >13 - Ironically, we have discovered new information about UFO
 >activity in the last two weeks that indicates that something
 >intriguing was going on in East Anglia in the mid-late 1970s.

So what is it?

 >(This may not related to my personal belief that RAF Alconbury
 >was a temporary station for secret/black project aircraft in the
 >UK in the late 1970s (from 1978 onwards).)

That was always a possibility in the back of my mind, but the black
project was likely UK as the only known USAF was the stealth
and it didn't get out of the US until later.

 >14 - So, there is much for us to do, hence Stage 2, which begins
 >now. The evaluation of existing research, such as it is, and
 >researching new information, which could take some time. We
 >never expected any help from the UFO community, do not ask it
 >and, probably, do not need it although there are some notable
 >exceptions. People have privately e-mailed us saying things
 >like, "well, we think this is really good stuff but couldn't
 >admit it in on the forums!"

 >In conclusion I should say that, unlike so many people, we do
 >not have fixed beliefs about Rendlesham and it is with an open
 >mind and new facts that we look forward to the challenge of
 >presenting our considered opinions in due course.

When you unload this theory with the accompanying evidence you
can just about guarantee that it will be checked and rechecked
If the evidence stands and can take the examination great. If it
doesn't then it will just be another theory on the Rendlesheim
dung heap.


Cheers,

Robert






UFO UpDates - Toronto - ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List operated by
Errol Bruce-Knapp

UFO UpDates Archives are available at:
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates

'Strange Days...Indeed' - available 'live' via
Windows Media Player 10:00 Eastern, Saturday nights at:
http://cfrb.com/

Coming soon..... The Virtually Strange Nework





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com