Merged Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program UFO'S

[Matthew Ellard]

Ah yes, the Rendlesham Forest incident.. I remember it well,

It's one of my favourite total crap UFO stories. I simply loved the mysterious UFO landing indentations........that were actually rabbit scrappings and all over the entire forest.

The best debunk of this story is by a gentleman called Ian Ridpath.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rabbits.htm

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Elizondo had access, he claims

I'm starting to doubt every bit of Elizondo's crap story.

The first person who would see the UFO on the video would be the post-mission debriefing officer on the Nimitz. That officer would see the entire full length video from all four F-18s, from the second group.

However, there was no second group of four F-18s, which supposedly captured this video. Where are those debrief statements? Why does Elizondo only have one video and not the pilots' statement?

Where are the four full length HUD videos?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I find this letter interesting.

"2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2″ deep and 7″ in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/Gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the three depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (0.05 – 0.07) readings on the side of the tree facing towards the three depressions."

Radioactive rabbit scrappings? Again, here is the debunk by Ian Ridpath. It is a very funny and simple debunk.

 

[Darat]

We injected plutonium into people and deliberately withheld syphilis cures. Agent Orange, depleted uranium slugs...Who knows what else has gone on we don't know about. I wouldn't put anything past our military.

Which doesn't address the point. The claim is that the video was released by the DoD, but there is nothing from the DoD that says the video was released by them.

The claim is not that it was leaked by someone at the DoD.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And if it's not?

If you find evidence its not faked, let me know and I'll take another look.

The video I've seen so far has an unidentifiable smudge right in the crosshairs of what looks like a military jet's IR display. As the jet manoeuvres, the smudge remains fixed exactly in place without so much as a wobble. At one point the smudge revolves but again stays firmly in place. Eventually it slides off to the left, out of view. Through all this there is nothing in the audio track to indicate that this odd thing, right in their sights, is the thing the pilots are talking about.

 

[Donn]

Yes it mentions it. Look closely at the video. It says: "Courtesy of U.S. Department of Defense"

 

[Donn]

Just to let you know, there are many things that you cannot find on the D0D website and I know that as a fact.

The indisputable…

However, let's head on over to…

Ooh, look! Shiney...

 

[skyeagle409]

"2. The next day, three depressions 1 1/2″ deep and 7″ in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/Gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the three depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (0.05 – 0.07) readings on the side of the tree facing towards the three depressions."

Radioactive rabbit scrappings? Again, here is the debunk by Ian Ridpath. It is a very funny and simple debunk.

Just to let you know that you just told me that you don't know the rest of the story. Had you done further research using the FOIA, you would have found that rabbits had nothing to do with it and that a determination was made the object weight around 8 tons and that is what reallly impressed the government investigators and the object described has also been described in other UFO sightings.

Once again, don't just rely on the Internet and let me know how much you don't know. Just use the FOIA to get the rest of the picture of what you did't know!! Declassified govenment documents will tell the rest of the story.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Just to let you know that you just told me that you don't know the rest of the story.

No Son. I know the entire story. The three indentations from "landing gear of a UFO" were actually just rabbit scrappings. Not only is the forest covered in the same rabbit scrappings back then, but it is still covered in them today.

Had you done further research using the FOIA, you would have found that rabbits had nothing to do with it......

No one has sent the rabbits a "freedom of Information" request.

Sadly you are making this new story up on the spot. If the rabbit scraping indentations were radioactive at the time, as you claimed, they would still be radioactive today, but magically the UK EPA found no evidence of radioactivity at all. You didn't know that did you?

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rabbits.htm

and that a determination was made the object weight around 8 tons....

There is no such magical report. You made this up on the spot. Show us that report and the number of landing legs.

SkyEagle will now tell us how these rabbit scraping photos indicate. eight ton rabbits. One photo is meant to be a UFO landing indentation.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

and that a determination was made the object weight around 8 tons.....

Now you directly lied and made up that "fact" on the spot, didn't you?

The "landing pad indentation" ( In reality a rabbit scraping) is 1.5 inches deep (38mm) and 7 inches (177mm) in diameter.

Do you think 8 metric tons, resting on soft soil, on the surface area of a small pie plate is only going to sink 38mm?

 

[skyeagle409]

No Son. I know the entire story. The three indentations from "landing gear of a UFO" were actually just rabbit scrappings. Not only is the forest covered in the same rabbit scrappings back then, but it is still covered in them today.

No one has sent the rabbits a "freedom of Information" request.

Sadly you are making this new story up on the spot. If the rabbit scraping indentations were radioactive at the time, as you claimed, they would still be radioactive today, but magically the UK EPA found no evidence of radioactivity at all. You didn't know that did you?

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rabbits.htm



There is no such magical report. You made this up on the spot. Show us that report and the number of landing legs.

SkyEagle will now tell us how these rabbit scraping photos indicate. eight ton rabbits. One photo is meant to be a UFO landing indentation.

Those were not rabbit scraping as the depressions formed a perfect triangle and not only were there was moderate radiation readings near the landing site, the highest radiation readings were at the tri-pod depressions, which were above typical radiation readings. Plaster was used in the depressions which once again, was where the highest radiation readings were recorded. BTW, I wouldn’t use Ian Ridpath as a reference. He has been debunked time and time again. Ask him what caught the attention of USAF security at the East gate that gave them a reason to conduct an investigation into the forest and if says anything about a lighthouse then my case will be proven that he has no credibity in the Rendlesham case because I had to go out of my way to produce photos from the East gate area to prove that it was impossible to see the lighthouse from the East gate. In fact, the lighthouse in question also had a light-blocking panel between the light source and the base. I put him in the same boat as UFO skeptic Tim Printy for whom I had some heated discussions over Roswell and thanks to what I knew about Roswell and the involvement of the C-54 in that case, he was forced to make a correction on his own website. All he had to do was to do some research. On another note, my assistant on an Air Force contract at Travis AFB, CA. was at RAF Bentwaters during the Rendlesham incident and he provided further information on events that occurred, and I might add that there multiple nights involving UFOs. I might also add that UFOs made a big hit near the area in 1956.

 

[skyeagle409]

Now you directly lied and made up that "fact" on the spot, didn't you?

The "landing pad indentation" ( In reality a rabbit scraping) is 1.5 inches deep (38mm) and 7 inches (177mm) in diameter.

Do you think 8 metric tons, resting on soft soil, on the surface area of a small pie plate is only going to sink 38mm?

Initially I thought you were referring to the Socorro UFO landing case where tripod depressions were examined. That was another UFO landing case that impressed the U.S. government.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

"The next day, three depressions 1 1/2″ deep and 7″ in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/Gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the three depressions."

Now think carefully. What would be the comparative expected normal radiation in a forest? What would be the half life period of that radioactive source......ten thousand years? Yet amazingly.........

"In September 1982, less than two years after the event, the site was checked for radiation by researchers from the Swindon Centre for UFO Research and Investigation (SCUFORI). They found nothing unusual. Nor did USAF Major James McGaha when he checked the site unofficially in 1987 while stationed at the base. McGaha emailed me in 1994: “There [was] nothing above background. They simply did not know what they were doing. If there were higher levels then you would still see them today, even with a very careful clean-up.”
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

Sooooooo....Skyeagle409? What is the radiation levels of the rabbit scrappings today? As a leading UFO "researcher" did you check this?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

not only were there was moderate radiation readings near the landing site, the highest radiation readings were at the tri-pod depressions

1)Tell me what this reading was again in comparison to normal expected back ground readings?

2) Do you know what radioactive half life means? If so why isn't the site still radioactive?

Try harder next time with your next little story......

 

[Hans]

Try harder next time with your next little story......

I wonder if his motivation is similar to those that conduct pious fraud?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The "landing pad indentation" ( In reality a rabbit scraping) is 1.5 inches deep (38mm) and 7 inches (177mm) in diameter.

Initially I thought you were referring to the Socorro UFO landing case where tripod depressions were examined.

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Are you now agreeing that the Rendlesham UFO actually weighed as much as a normal forest rabbit and that's why the indentations are only 38mm deep?

Average Weight of Rabbit : 0.4 to 2 kilograms

 

[Matthew Ellard]

STOP PRESS : MUFON makes big announcement.

 

[skyeagle409]

Ah yes, the Rendlesham Forest incident.. I remember it well, I was stationed at RAF Lakeheath at that same time (about 40 miles away further inland) .

What can you tell us about the UFO Lakenheath incidents of 1956?

Scuttlebutt was that what the lads saw was the Orfordness lighthouse.

Not from the East gate! In addition, Inwent out my way to provide photo evidence that it was impossible to see the lighthouse from the East gate, not to mention that my assist on an Air Force also confirmed the lighthouse cannot seen from the East gate and to further add, the lighthouse has a light-blocking panel facing the base. How long has that lighthouse been in operation? Any similar reports from the East gate before the 1980 incidents? If not, then you have some explaining to do considering Air Force personnel were long aware of that lighthouse yet no reports in the forest from the East gate on the level of the Rendlesham case. Please explain that.


The Lighthouse

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/orfordness_lighth.jpg

Where’s the Lighthouse?

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/ren_eastgrd1981.jpg

The Map

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/REND_map1.gif

They made the whole UFO story up...things got out of hand quickly and

they found themselves unable to retract, so they did the only think they could... double down on the hoax.

That is completely false and I know that as a fact. Explain why the British MoD sought to cover up the Rendlesham case. Ask them about Col. Halt’s memo.

There is a pretty good analysis here

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135

I have, over the years, warned UFO skeptics about those skepticle websites. One UFO skeptic in another Roswell forum was using Tim Printy’s website in his argument against me. He soon tired of my repeated debunking of Tim’s website and personally contacted Tim and brought Tim into the burning frying pan and when the smoke cleared, Tim Printy was forced to make a correction on his own website after I presented evidence that he was barking up the wrong tree.

 

[skyeagle409]

You are digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Are you now agreeing that the Rendlesham UFO actually weighed as much as a normal forest rabbit and that's why the indentations are only 38mm deep?

Average Weight of Rabbit : 0.4 to 2 kilograms

That won’t work and I very sure that radioactive rabbits with measuring tapes were responsible for the higher radiation readings within the precise triangular arrangement. Don’t follow Ian Ridpath or Tim Printy’s false path to a dead-end street.

BTW, who is Kevin Corde?

 

[smartcooky]

STOP PRESS : MUFON makes big announcement.

That's all folks!