|
Post by snapper on Aug 10, 2012 12:03:20 GMT -5
With UFOs it's not a question of whether a person believes in them or not, after all a UFO is simply that, an Unidentified Flying Object, it is the lack of hard evidence to support claims of extra-terrestrial craft. A UFO can be anything from a commercial airliner seen from an angle, Chinese lanterns, experimental military aircraft or unmanned drone, weather or light phenomena, a flock of birds, a helicopter, hot air balloons of unusual shape - pretty much anything at all.
The problem with UFOs in the context of an alien spacecraft, is the almost total lack of truly credible evidence - nothing from SETI, no clear photographs (despite the thousands upon thousands of photograhers around the globe armed with sophisticated equipment and expansive skills), fairly vague witness statements etc.. Of course there are some very credible witnesses who have seen strange things in the sky but there is never any clear evidence that can support absolutely the existence of alien craft.
if alien craft were as numerous as is claimed by some, then the law of averages means someone, somewhere MUST have a crystal clear photo or video clip - but all we ever see are blurry images and faked photos. And so it is with the RFI - there is no clear evidence from anyone who was there on the night, just anecdotes and conflicting statements. However, the one thing different about the RFI is the fact there was much going on elsewhere that involved the USAF from bases in east Anglia - and I firmly believe that somewhere within that activity lies the answer to the RFI. it's simply a question of digging deeper in the various archives, visiting key locations and researching certain world events. I know that is not the view of others, nor do I expect it to be and neither am I suggesting others are wrong, after all they have their own, perfectly valid opinions. It's just my view, nothing more - and I am quite happy to accept that I could be totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Aug 11, 2012 1:53:19 GMT -5
Here’s a nice experiment for all those who complain about a lack of UFO evidence and clear pictures despite all the digital cameras around these days:
- Goto Google images and search for ‘airplane’. You will get about 150 million hits. Most of them taken at airports because it’s very hard to take good pictures of a plane flying a few 1000 feet above you. Of course you ‘know’ that the airplanes on the images are real, because you know that airplanes exist.
- Now search for ‘UFO’. You will get about 140 million hits. Some sharp, some vague. Of course you ‘know’ that all sharp ones are fake, and all vague ones are misidentified common objects. But how can you be sure this is true for all 140 million images?
- Now do the same experiment on Youtube: Airplane: 200.000 hits, UFO 400.000 hits.
There are as many images and movie clips on the internet of UFO’s as there are of airplanes. So what tells you that UFO’s do not exist? The lack of photographs and movies in this digital age, or your personal confirmation bias that tells you these photographs and movies must ALL either be fake or misidentifications of common objects?
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 11, 2012 6:44:22 GMT -5
This brings me back to the Rendlesham Forest Incident, where the News of the World gave it the UFO title.
Its perfectly reasonable to call the RFI a UFO incident but it was not necessarily of alien origin. It could quite easily have been a man made or natural phenomena. The evidence so far tells us very little and I suspect that we shall still be wondering in 20 years time as to what happened if any thing actually happened at all. As you say Frank, a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object, and could be anything from a helium filled party balloon upwards. It only becomes a party balloon when its near enough for you to identify it as a balloon. This is very old ground for me as it was done to death on the old forum. Yep, I believe in UFO's because I have seen one or two, but I need the evidence to tell me they were of alien origin or any origin for that matter.
To describe the RFI as a UFO incident might be a bit off the mark and I feel the incident falls into other categories.
Obs
|
|
|
Post by snapper on Aug 11, 2012 8:06:24 GMT -5
All I can say to that is, if there are millions upon millions of crystal clear photographs and video clips of alien craft then why is there any doubt about their existence? It would be case proven and the interest in UFOs per se would vanish.
Getting back to the RFI and radars: As far as I know, none of the local papers published anything. If a large unknown craft hovered over the twin bases and remained on station for several minutes to be seen by both civilians and USAF personnel, someone would have phoned it in and the Eastern Daily Times (EDT) would have given it a couple of column inches at least.
More importantly, the RAF would have scrambled fighters to take a look and the bases would have gone from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 2, perhaps even DEFCON 1 alert. Apparently, they didn't.
I cannot recall any mention of an increased DEFCON state at either base (please - someone correct me if I'm wrong and provide a verifiable source). Warren mentioned arriving at Bentwaters during an alert and later, manning a flightline guard post only activated during an alert so they might already have been at 4, perhaps 3 and that was before the RFI
These were major, front line nuclear bases during the height of the Cold War at a time of some tension between east and west. Any hint of an attack on the bases would have triggered a full scale defensive reaction both inside (USAF) and outside (UK) the perimeter. Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect a situation that [apparently] resulted in a substantial increase in F / FO telephone traffic and where a large, unidentified aircraft was, allegedly, seen hovering over two frontline nuclear bases, would increase the alert state. Nobody but nobody would have stood around staring, saying 'Oooh. Look at that. I wonder what that is?...' .
Any unidentified aircraft deemed to have potentially hostile intent would have been logged as a bandit. Consequently, there'd have been alarms and sirens going off all over the place. By all accounts there were no alarms or sirens of any kind. Why?
As part of the recent security measures for London 2012, the RAF was ready to shoot down any unidentified aircraft entering UK airspace and heading for London. Never mind that debris and wreckage might have landed on Buckingham Palace or anywhere else. What would the RAF have done in a similar situation when nuclear bases were threatened during the Cold War? One thing is for sure - they would not have sat around twiddling their thumbs.
So, focusing on the RFI and only the RFI, with regard to an incursion by extra-terrestrial / unidentied alien craft. the evidence suggests it was nothing of the kind.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 11, 2012 8:59:11 GMT -5
Only RAF Bentwaters had stock piles of nuclear weapons, RAF Woodbridge did not. The A-10 Thunderbolts at both bases were not nuclear capable. The nukes were for the F-16 and F-15's when they were moved to Bentwaters after the A-10's had deployed forward to West Germany. The weapons were what we called low yield theatre weapons classified in the low KT class. In other words, battle field weapons. The twin bases were a number one target by the Soviet Block and this certainly put the jitters up some of the younger men.
Tensions at the Polish boarder in 1980/81 were running high and some mobilization by both sides was taking place. Some A-10 were deployed to Germany just in case but not all.
Russia was also using what was called low orbit 30-day spy SAT's and some were orbiting over East Anglia. They would take pictures and then jettison the film canisters over Soviet territory. It was suggested [not by me] that this is what could have come down in the forest. In fact one American airman said "we brought down one of their SAT's"
Obs
|
|
|
Post by snapper on Aug 11, 2012 14:29:59 GMT -5
Useful information, Observer. Many thanks. There is a question mark over what was stored where. The 'hot row' at Bentwaters is well documented but not so what was contained in the WSA at Woodbridge. This is what Hansard, the official UK parliamentary record has to say: RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge: Nuclear Weapons Allegations
Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the allegations contained in the recently published book Left at East Gate, to the effect that nuclear weapons were stored at RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge in violation of UK/US treaty obligations are true.
Lord Gilbert: It has always been the policy of this and previous governments neither to confirm nor to deny where nuclear weapons are located either in the UK or elsewhere, in the past or at the present time. Such information would be withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of reports from the United States Air Force personnel that nuclear weapons stored in the Weapons Storage Area at RAF Woodbridge were struck by light beams fired from an unidentified craft seen over the base in the period 25-30 December 1980, and if so, what action was subsequently taken.
Lord Gilbert: There is no evidence to suggest that the Ministry of Defence received any such reports.Source: (Hansard) www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo971028/text/71028w01.htm
|
|
|
Post by snapper on Aug 11, 2012 15:21:10 GMT -5
Incidentally, there have been suggestions of underground storage facilities at Bentwaters. What might have given rise to this is the 1976 'forward look' US programme to install underground weapons storage vaults (WSV) at USAF nuclear bases, including those in the UK. The purpose of the WSVs was to better protect the weapons. Instead of storing them in surface igloos within WSAs, they would be stored below the concrete floor of Protected Storage Area (PSA) igloos and brought to the surface by an elevator arrangement. Part of the concrete floor of the igloo would act as the upper surface of the elevator chamber. Installation of the WSVs did not start until several years later, in 1990. This links to the a US National Resources Defence Council document that gives more information: www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf - scroll to page 14. If the link doesn't work try cutting and pasting the url into your browser.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 12, 2012 2:09:34 GMT -5
Thanks snapper
Some useful info. My two ex USAF pals who I am still in contact with said there was no Hot Row at Woodbridge As for some under ground WSA, this has been banded about since Larry Warren mentioned it in his book. There is no way the British government would not know about Nukes at Bentwaters, they authorized and contracted the building of the WSA + Hot Row. Just as a side note, the hardened hangers at all USAF UK bases were built by an Italian contractor employing local British companies and workers.
Graham Haynes [Ex RAF] who now is the chief curator of the BWCWM at Bentwaters. He knows every square inch of the Bentwaters base and he told me he has never seen any underground facility or entrance to or bricked up etc. except small air raid bunkers. If there was a under ground facility, there would have been huge excavations building it and lorries and machinery etc coming and going from the base over an extended period. I never knew or saw this or did any of my pals who lived in the area see any thing. Locals would have noticed.
Obs
|
|
|
Post by snapper on Aug 12, 2012 6:29:09 GMT -5
The first WSV to become active was at Buchel Airbase in 1990. The contractor was Bechtel International (a privately owned company with its HQ in San Francisco). Active WSV were installed at RAF Marham and RAF Lakenheath. Bentwaters was scheduled to have 25 WSV installed but according to the document, this work was never completed. The WSV were not huge underground complexes, just small elevators built on a concrete base and big enough to accommodate four B61 bombs.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 12, 2012 9:02:48 GMT -5
Hi snapper
Its interesting you mention the WSV elevators. Graham Haynes and myself searched the Bentwaters WSA bunkers with a fine tooth comb after LW had made the remark about under ground facilities with lifts. We could not find a thing or any evidence that this system had been installed or bricked up or had been decommissioned at B-W. G-Bruni in her book "You Can't Tell the People" made claims of a locked door as the entrance to an under ground facility in the Command centre, Graham check this out and it was a broom cupboard.
Its an interesting visit, but its by appointment with the BWCWM. There is the famous British made 'Chubb' walk in safe where the bomb fuses were kept and its interesting to see all the air condition systems they had to use [Hot Row] to keep the weapons in top operational condition. I also did not know that they had a fairly short 'shelf' life, so the visiting C-5 or C-141 'bomb ship' would land and taxi into a secure area with their own armed guards and weapons would be exchanged. They were thus transported back to the US for strip down, checks and refurb. This rotation went on at all USAF nuke bases.
Now its interesting to note that just up the road 40 miles or so just out side Thetford was an RAF WSA which housed the big ones. Thermo nuclear Megaton and high Kiloton weapons used by the 'V' bombers. No body ever reported light beams shining down on that WSA trying to disable them.
I think we are drifting off topic a tad but its very interesting never the less. Obs
|
|
|
Post by EllCoor on Nov 9, 2019 22:27:44 GMT -5
Propecia Finasteride Reviews Buy Online Propecia Generic <a href=http://curerxfor.com>viagra</a> Cialis Y Alcohol
|
|
|
Post by EllCoor on Jan 10, 2020 10:51:02 GMT -5
Order Zithromax Without Prescription Zithromax For Acne Propecia Es Igual Que Proscar <a href=http://cialibuy.com>Buy Cialis</a> Tomar Cialis Ocasionalmente Conseguir Viagra Espana Propecia Absetzen Kinderwunsch
|
|