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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp