UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Feb > Feb 12

Opinions On New Rendlesham Theory

From: Dave Haith <visions1.nul>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:30:56 -0000
Archived: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:24:40 -0500
Subject: Opinions On New Rendlesham Theory


The web has been buzzing with controversy following my
circulation of Sacha Christie's theory on what happened at
Rendlesham as written at her blog:

http://tinyurl.com/7tddqr9

I sent it around because it seemed perhaps a little less loony
than some of the explanations we've heard but was well aware of
the lack of evidential connection between the documents she
highlighted and Rendlesham. Here's is a link to the documents:

http://tinyurl.com/7nghdrl

It's amazing how many people assume that just because you inform
others of somebody's research, you necessarily agree and endorse
it.

I did first watch an interview with Sasha here:
She comes on four or five mins in I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9F0U-hCK3eY

She seems reasonably coherant despite her paranormal experiences
at Rendlesham which of course oddly, fly in the face of her one
off testing experiment theory, considering weird stuff has been
going down in that area for many years.

I would like to present here a round up of some opinions I've
received from various well known researchers, all, I have to
say, rubbishing Sasha's theory as an explanation for Rendlesham.

First off is Jim Penniston who was there, so his views must count.

He responded in the Outpost forum, answering a poster, here:

http://tinyurl.com/7k4xakv

Jim Penniston wrote:


"Here is the post I did on the Justice site last night. She was
using this 244 page Defense Nuclear Agency program document to
explain the RFI. I thought I set one of her supporters straight
with this. I just happen to be very familure with the document
and program she was trying to use. Posting below from Justice
site. .nul Dan, I am glad you like this document. This
document is part of a testing program by the Defense Nuclear
Agency. It was designed to test and understand effects from
interior alarms within weapons storage structures, and the MAID
MILES (Magnetic Anti-Intrusion Detection Line Sensor) magnetic
line sensors surrounding WSAs, which also included FDS (Fence
Disturbance System) which was attached to outer chain link
fences on WSAs... The study program was two-fold, one it had a
concentration of prolong effects of physiological effects such
as mental fatigue. It further looked at the line sensors; the
Maid Miles could cause some other minor conditions if you were
exposed to the magnetic field from the line sensor.

Prolong exposure would have to be caused from directly standing
within the very small area of influence. (The actual distant
would be classified, but outside the immediate area of the WSA
that is installed in would determine range. But rest assured it
would be less than twenty feet... And two, the study and testing
also observed and evaluated responses from SRTs (Security Alert
Teams) and by ARTs (Alarm Response Teams), back up times, and
effectiveness under fatigue situations was also evaluated under
this study I was a qualified SPCDS Operator and was certified in
that position, I further wrote and developed all Security
OPLANS, and Security Directives for the twin bases. It is
important to know, that this testing was done stateside at
Nellis AFB in the early 1980s for Sandia Labs. Testing of this
sort was done entirely in the states for standardization
purposes. The USAF never conducts testing outside the
continental United States. Because of security reasons.

It also studied time responses and back up of security teams and
SPCDS Operator alarm Annunciations within the Shelter when this
alarm was active. This program that you and Ronnie are referring
too, once read in its entirety you will find, answers _nothing_
I am afraid, because people are trying to re-write was it is
intended for.

It is simply a standardization and evaluation of a bigger
security picture involving the type of systems used and response
initiatives. In either case, to have any medical or
physiological effect, you would have to live inside a structure
for about five years to be effected or be camped outside for
years trying to get a medical effect from this by-product of
these alarm systems. An interesting fact is the study determined
in .001 percent of the cases involving testing; it only created
a slight medical condition. Very rare and remote.

So I am not knocking theories Dan, I am only telling you that this
program/study does not have anything to do with any Air Force Base which is
located overseas. I do understand that bogus information like this detracts
and can mislead people, and derail them from what really happened at RAF
Bentwaters/Woodbridge. The answers are very simple, and we will see you in
June."


Next up John Alexander retired US Army Colonel and a leading advocate for
the development of non-lethal weapons.

He wrote to me:


"Nonsense. Your explanation does not fit the facts - four
decades of them. That's hardly a DNA experiment.

This is ergofusion, typical of the field. There is nothing in
the document you sent that in any way relates to the Bentwaters
case. As indicated in my earlier email, unusual events at
Bentwaters preceded the now famous two-three days, and have
continued up until recently, long after the base was closed.
Making a case that it was a psychological experiment (which
others have done as well) just doesn't accommodate the facts. In
fact, I doubt that we currently have the capability to recreate
the incident as described by the large number of witnesses."

Here's what Nick Pope has to say:


"I'm skeptical that any trial of the sort suggested here (with
personnel at Bentwaters/Woodbridge being used as =E2=80=98guinea pigs'
in an attempt to see how security personnel would react to
various - possibly exotic - events) took place or could have
explained the Rendlesham Forest incident. On page 7 of the
document that's being quoted, for example, you'll find the
quote: "... everybody early in the game knows it is an exercise
... what you cannot do as far as I can see at the present time
is to actually initiate an event that will result in the call
out of a fire team, for example, without the whole system
knowing it is an exercise. That simply is beyond the scope of
what we might be able to do.

Even if something like this had happened, MoD would have
received advance notice or, at the very least, retrospective
notice, and I would recall this from MoD files. In any case,
conducting such a test in the UK would have been an added and
unnecessary complication =E2=80=93 any such test would most likely
have been conducted in the Continental United States.

More generally, where the whole theory falls down is on the
idea that you'd concoct a UFO encounter as a cover story. There
would have been no need. You'd simply tell those personnel
concerned that they'd been involved in an exercise, that the
details were classified and that they weren't to talk about it.
Most, if not all, would have complied."


Now UFOs and Nukes researcher Robert Hastings view which he sent
me and wrote on Sacha's blog:


"Sacha,

I research nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents utilizing
declassified US government documents and the testimony of ex-
military personnel. Since 1973 I have interviewed more than 130
of those veterans, including the seven who participated in my
September 27, 2010 press conference in Washington D.C.

CNN streamed that event live and the full-length video of it may
be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3jUU4Z8QdHI.

While your scenario is interesting, it simply will not work. In
point of fact, declassified documents and supporting witness
testimony confirm that UFO incursions at nuclear Weapons Storage
Areas (WSAs) such as the one at RAF Bentwaters first occurred in
the late 1940s, at Killeen Base, in Texas, and Manzano Base, in
New Mexico. Indeed, such incursions are well documented
throughout the era of nuclear weapons testing, deployment and
storage=E2=80=94long before the experiment proposed in the DNA
document you have used as the basis for your speculation.

Re: the Bentwaters incident in particular, I will simply mention
here that in 2006 I interviewed, on tape, the two USAF air
traffic controllers who were on duty at the RAF Bentwaters tower
during the week of UFO activity in December 1980. Neither had
gone on-the-record previously. Both confirm tracking a bona fide
unknown =E2=80=9Ctarget=E2=80=9D that traveled 120 miles in 8-12 seconds
(that is, two to three sweeps on their radar screen) and,
according to one of them, made a 90-degree turn at one point.
The object apparently hovered momentarily not far from the tower
and was described by one of the controllers as an orange-colored
sphere with lights around its equator.

In short, radar data, which are empirical not anecdotal, support
the presence of at least one unknown, high performance aerial
craft during the period of reported UFO activity at the twin
bases in late December 1980.

The controllers' verbatim testimony and other information
relating to the events of that week may be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/89frftl

I will send, at no cost, copious excerpts from my book UFOs and
Nukes to anyone who emails me at ufohastings.nul The
declassified information relating to the Killeen Base incidents,
in particular, as they relate to the Bentwaters incidents some
30 years later, are particularly noteworthy."


Now, Fortean author Colin Bennett of the Combat Diaries,
responds:

There have been many Lutheran counter-attacks such as this. She
makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that the documents she
cites as "evidence" refer to Rendlesham when they may well refer
to other events, or indeed be purely a theoretical paper for a
purely theoretical excercise, which was probably the origin of
the infamous MJ-12 papers.

She appears not to realise that it is not necessary for any
action to follow or indeed for any events to have "actually"
occurred in order to launch an array of belief and
"explanations" sufficient to create a belief system. Given Web
power and mass media actuality is no longer needed for Orwellian
Control. A controlled feed of images to archetypal appetites is
all that is needed. Therefore the documents she refers to might
be termed inspiration arrays more than anything "real" in the
pre-postmodern sense. We would be fools to assume that
Intelligence agencies are not into this kind of thing in a big
way. Media is Cool Control. Eventually tanks, guns and
concentration camps may not be needed.

The way it works is like that method described by Borges in his
story: Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertius.

Suppose Mr X claims that he has two heads on his shoulders, but
only one is visible. A torrent of claims that the invisible head
has been seen will surely follow. Clusters of images will swarm
as in the process of crystallisation. Sketches and screen-shots
of the invisible head will doubtless appear, only to be denied
by the original Mr X who might insist that these attempts at
portrayal of his invisible head are not =E2=80=9Caccurate.=E2=80=9D This
situation is created not by facts but by images. Others will
claim to have a similar invisible head themselves, and a whole
viral meme will have been created. The many pseudo-heads will
cross breed, Mr X will be interviewed by Project Camelot, Jerry
Springer Ufologists and Foil-Hat Radio, in which (in most cases)
pseudo-evidence of a particular pseudo-event will be produced.
It follows that the beloved scientists as commissar/gauleiters
managing the Thou Shalt Not control system will weigh in with
numberless denials of anything and everything beyond the sun and
moon.

Should anyone not believe a word of any of this than let them
take a look at the following New Yorker article by Jeannie
Vanasco

Why is DARPA interested in story-telling?

http://tinyurl.com/7eds62m

Now for the forthright opinion of long time UFO and anomalies
researcher George Wingfield:

"Bullshit! Oh, dear , oh dear, Dave! I'm afraid that once again
you've been listening to one of those krazy konspiracy kooks and
especially so in this case, since this one even describes
herself as an infomaniac housewife and par-abnormal investigator
who produces inane ramblings. Should you really believe someone
like this? The answer is quite simply NO.

"Fifteen years ago I went to a UFO conference at which Larry
Warren was giving a presentation based on his book Left At East
Gate which he wrote with Peter Robbins. Peter is an honest guy
and clearly believed all that Larry had told him but in my
judgment Larry is not, and I got the very strong impression that
much of what he said was fabricated. I am seldom wrong about
these things.

"Over the years other researchers have increasingly questioned
Larry Warren's testimony about the Bentwaters/Rendlesham Forest
case and it is almost certain that he was not actually there in
December 1980 when these events occurred, although he was posted
to the base at some stage. If you read Georgina Bruni's
excellent book You Can't Tell The People on Rendlesham you will
find that was her take on the matter. There were many other USAF
servicemen who witnessed UFO events in Rendlesham Forest and
over RAF Bentwaters at the time and I have far more faith in
what they say than I have in Larry Warren. Charles Halt, John
Burroughs, Jim Penniston, Adrian Bustinza, Edward Cabansag, and
others are far more credible than Larry Warren and I have no
doubt they would all reject this extraordinary new unsupported
claim from the mad housewife in Leeds.

"I have no axe to grind as regards whether the Rendlesham Forest
events involved ET flying saucers, time travelers, or a
psychological warfare experiment conducted by the Defense
Nuclear Agency. I would very much like to know the truth but I
really don't believe this explanation is valid in any way.
Jacques Vallee would favour a solution of this kind but I very
much doubt that he would support this kind of evidence .

"I will just add that the UFO conference at which I met Larry
Warren was also one where I met and got to know Whitley
Strieber. I like Whitley immensely and he was always the life
and soul of the party but I soon became aware that his alien
encounters as described in Communion - A True Story were solely
horror fiction. I saw quite a bit of Whitley at one time and
also talked to his wife and other friends of his and I am now
100% sure that his abduction and anal rape by aliens was
something that only happened in his very fertile imagination and
not in our consensus reality.

"So whatever the truth of the Rendlesham Forest case, I very
much doubt that you will find it in the inane ramblings of this
Leeds housewife. As, they used to say in the X-Files: TRUST NO
ONE!  Especially not the likes of her. Please pass this letter
of mine on to others on your mailing list in case they too have
been misled."

So there you go folks - I have had other responses mostly in a
similar vein but this will do for one day...


Dave Haith






Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ 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