Project Serpo Release 32

[Khtiraa]

Originally Posted by StephieM

People have been known to do some wild and crazy things!

As for Serpo, I don't think the government is behind it. If the government is hiding something, the last thing they want is another conspiracy theory. I think when it comes to disinfo on the governments part, it's more of a debunking tactic to get people to veer away from the UFO phenom all together. Something like this only gets people more riled up and enthusiastic about the issue. IMO...it's either 1) Some smart *** skeptic who has way too much time on their hands, who will eventually come out and say..."Ha ha, the jokes on you." Or 2) A UFO buff who likewise has too much time on their hands, who must of thought we didn't have enough to talk about on the subject so created this new fantastic story that would certainly get us all buzzing. I'm sure in either case their thinking was..."let's see how fast this gets around the net, how big it gets, and how many people will fall for it".

This kind of thing really makes me angry. This is exactly why so many people refuse to take the subject seriously. It's these junk heads that ruin it for the rest of us. People assume that if some of it is a bunch of bologna, then all of it must be a bunch of bologna. Therefore anyone who believes any of it, must be completely off their rocker.

Makes sense. Yea, it bothers me also.

[Khtiraa]

Originally Posted by Miss Deetective

You hit the nail on the head, Stephie....we see that kind of thinking right here on this board!!! Too many people are willing the throw out the baby with the bath water!!!
Hoaxes do NOT negate genuine phenomena...they only muddy up the water.

Not to stretch the point, but I get a kick from those who use the worst examples of ufology and UFO/contact reports as evidence of invalidation. I never see their input on cases that stand up to scrutiny. This is why I always wonder what the motivation of the nay-sayer really is. Is it simply easier to be the negating voice of reason than to apply the effort of thinking and dialogue?
Some remind me of politicians who make their stand on hot button issues and hear themselves talk. Since there are cases with evidence to support a truth, why aren't they coming up to the plate in terms of logic? A forum paradox seems to arise from the fact that there is this relentless interjection of doubt, when this act only deepens the commitment and determination of those who believe. It appears that the opposition, be it from government sources or merely personal preferences, seem to be the force fanning the flames of interest and intrigue. I suppose in one respect they should be thanked in some way.

[StephieM]

Not to stretch the point, but I get a kick from those who use the worst examples of ufology and UFO/contact reports as evidence of invalidation. I never see their input on cases that stand up to scrutiny. This is why I always wonder what the motivation of the nay-sayer really is. Is it simply easier to be the negating voice of reason than to apply the effort of thinking and dialogue?

According to the 'nay-sayers', there is no good example qualified enough to be considered evidence. Take the Rendlesham Forest case for example...there are multiple credible witnesses, tape recordings of the event and sketches of the object taken at the time of the event, examination of the surrounding area supporting the presense of burn marks on the ground where the object landed, broken limbs and branches from where the object took off, and radiation readings far from being normal in an area in the middle of the woods.
Die hard skeptics will say they were all hallucinating and the light they saw was coming from the light house a mile away. Others will admit, yeah it's a mystery, but you will have a hard time getting them to admit more than that. IMO this case is the one case that is absolutely proves without a doubt that these men saw something that did not belong to this earth. This is the one case that should have convinced anyone who harbored any doubts on the subject. If this case doesn't convince them, then no case will.

[Carol Nistri]

Yes I know what you mean Step,we had one poster suggest it was space junk,dispite Col.Halt giving a distint discription of what they saw and how it behaved,shees.

[VISITOR]

In the Rendlesham Forest case the detractors and sceptics have ALL missed one very important point, either deliberately or through ignorance. Tha case for the Lighthouse being the UFO falls completely on its face. The Lighthouse was not built, positioned or designed to shine into the Forest so it could not have been the light from the Lighthouse that was seen. The Lighthouse shone out into the North Sea to warn ships. It did not shine into the forest to warn Mr. Rabbit that Mr. Fox was about.

[oskar]

So what came first Serpo or Speilberg ?

[VISITOR]

Originally Posted by oskar

So what came first Serpo or Speilberg ?

Obviously Serpo. That's where Speilberg got the idea, in CE3K, from.

[DrDil]

Originally Posted by VISITOR

In the Rendlesham Forest case the detractors and sceptics have ALL missed one very important point, either deliberately or through ignorance. Tha case for the Lighthouse being the UFO falls completely on its face. The Lighthouse was not built, positioned or designed to shine into the Forest so it could not have been the light from the Lighthouse that was seen. The Lighthouse shone out into the North Sea to warn ships. It did not shine into the forest to warn Mr. Rabbit that Mr. Fox was about.

Hi Visitor,

I don’t want to get into a debate about what was ‘actually’ seen at Rendlesham, however the lighthouse most certainly *IS* visible from the spot where the UFO was reported to have landed.


Cheers.

[StephieM]

Originally Posted by VISITOR

In the Rendlesham Forest case the detractors and sceptics have ALL missed one very important point, either deliberately or through ignorance. Tha case for the Lighthouse being the UFO falls completely on its face. The Lighthouse was not built, positioned or designed to shine into the Forest so it could not have been the light from the Lighthouse that was seen. The Lighthouse shone out into the North Sea to warn ships. It did not shine into the forest to warn Mr. Rabbit that Mr. Fox was about.

..... If only everyone could see it so plainly.

On any note we don't need the skeptics to verify what is completely obvious. All that matters is what we know and accept as individuals.

[VISITOR]

Originally Posted by DrDil

Hi Visitor,

I don’t want to get into a debate about what was ‘actually’ seen at Rendlesham, however the lighthouse most certainly *IS* visible from the spot where the UFO was reported to have landed.


Cheers.

Yes, the Lighthouse itself IS visible from the spot where the UFO was reported to have landed BUT the Beam does NOT project into the Forest. It projects out to Sea as it was intended to do, to warn Shipping.
Sceptics and detractors keep trying to slip in the position of the Lighthouse in relation to the " landing spot " but they are talking bollocks. I have been to Rendlesham Forest so I actually know what I am talking about in this respect. Unfortunately if anybody has never been to Rendlesham Forest and seen for themselves the point I was making it would be difficult for them to understand.