It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Rendlesham Forest: Radiation Injuries & Causes

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:27 PM
The following assumes several things:

- that at least some of the RFI sightings are not disinformation (although they could be induced imaginings)
- that at least one night of events took place
- that the radiation and retina injuries experienced are accurate as reported
- that plasma, natural or artificial was involved, or an artificial high energy emission source such as a scanner or unsheided nuclear reactor


For the past few months I've been looking at aspects of the RFI that have unusual or inconsistent details.I've been working on the following for some time, namely the radiation injuries suffered by several of the participants.

For those who don't know, there was a significant breakthrough for the case when John Burroughs' medical condition (essentially mitral heart valve damage) was acknowledged by the DOD as having being caused in the line of duty. Up until this point, his application for disability to the VA had been denied on the grounds that he was not on active duty at the time of the RFI.

This has now been changed, and the VA and DOD acknowledge that he was injured in the line of duty during the RFI. Curiously, his medical records are still classified.

Condign Report

So far, none of this is new. What is interesting is that John believes that the UK's Condign Report is what demonstrates a link between his radiation induced injuries and the event he encountered.

The following quote is from the Condign Report:

”The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods.”

Here in lies the problem, although not for John. It's good that he's been able to get the acknowledgement and care he so rightly deserves.

The problem is what the radiation injury tells us about the encounter. The Condign report leans towards UAP phenomena being a rare but natural phenomena. Whilst it's proven that plasmas can interfere with the human mind, causing strange perceptions (as the report says - from the 'imagination library) to occur, there is a huge difference between the power of electromagnetic radiation that can cause severe tissue damage and that would interfere with the mind.

Admittedly the report does suggest that radiation from UAPS might be unconventional and non electromagnetic.

Why do I say electromagnetic? Michael Persinger's 'God Helmet' has been shown to induce a very low level of altered experience compared to the visions experienced by Peniston, Bustanza, Warren, (La Plume?), Halt and others.

The helmet works via magnetic fields - not via ultraviolet, x ray or gamma particles.

Could the RFI 'vehicle' give off both high intensity magnetic fields and high energy particles?

The answer has to be yes, but with a huge caveat.

The power generation required to achieve all of this would be huge. I struggle to think of how any natural, temporal phenomena could have this kind of power for any length of time.

Consider the following -to replicate John's injury - a source of ionising radiation would be required. To shred the mitral valve a huge amount of high energy particles were required (relatively) that.

Looking over various injuries in medical literature it becomes clear that John's exposure must have been over 30 Grays. A gray = 100 rads. and that's probably in less than an hour (likely much less according to his encounter description).Also, as these are high energy particles and are subject to the inverse square law for falloff (a quick way to visualise this is as a gaussian or bell curve).

Let's consider what that would mean in light of Johns statement about seeing the craft in the distance:
- The inverse power law, means the rads next to the craft would be immeasurably higher. Halt would have radiation injuries. Penniston should be dead, as should Warren, Bustanza or many others.
- Or John got much closer to the craft. Again, remember the rapid fall off in exposure. The best explanation would be that he got on top of the craft for more than a few seconds - essentially absorbing the full impact of the emissions
- Or John's account of the distance is accurate, and he was specifically targeted by a high energy weapon.

What Type Of Radioactive Emissions Might Have Been Present?

Magnetic - conjecture by Condign to explain 'visions' of Penniston, Warren, possibly Burroughs of high strangeness
High Energy particles ( X Ray, Gamma) - as evidenced by Burrough's proven injuries and Warren's skin damage on his back (bleeding)
Ulta Violet - Flash burn / retina damage - Warren, Penniston, Burroughs.


The following are fairly logical conclusions because the physics of radiation emission, and inverse square law cannot be avoided, no matter the 'high strangeness'.

If RFI was a natural phenomena, then there is a natural power source in the atmosphere that is FAR more powerful than anything we can imagine. Capable of 30000 - 50000 rads - perhaps more. Or that Condigns buoyant plasma phenomena can tap into our own energy sources and siphon them off.

If RFI did not happen as 'told' then Burroughs, likely Warren and maybe others were exposed to some sort of nuclear incident.

If 'vehicles' of some sort were present - then possibly they use plasma for propulsion (like the Bennewitz craft). They emit large doses of high energy Ultra Violet, X Rays and Gamma rays. It seems more likely that these vehicles are nuclear powered - and using unshielded nuclear reactors. I'd also consider the possibility of a terahertz generator.


The rapid falloff of emissions leads to a disturbing hypothesis. Either Burroughs got on top of the craft, or the radiation was strong enough to injury him severely at a distance. If that's the case, then Warren, Bustinza should have massively higher exposure.

Or Burroughs was specifically targeted by a weapon.

It's hard to believe that a natural phenomena could generate such emissions in a sustained way. If unnatural, we are left with man made or extra terrestrial.

If purely related to the propulsion system then it is incredibly wasteful and inefficient due to the high energy emissions.

Far more likely that the 'vehicle' was nuclear powered. Or rather powered by nuclear fission. If that's the case ET's RFI vehicles are using technology we will soon surpass ourselves. They aren't more than a hundred years ahead.

Whilst I think that there are a lot of options - the physics are irrefutable (unless the RFI was a coverup for a very different type of nuclear accident). There was something generating high energy particles.

Personally, I think we're looking at a nuclear fission power generator (perhaps some sort of atomic pile) - used to generate massive amounts of electricity to power a plasma propulsion device / MHD / Bielefeld Brown effect device of some sort. The massive electrical generation is what filed the air with static.

"Are you telling me that this sucker is NUCLEAR? ... no, no, no, this sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity"

The above quote seems pretty appropriate. I'll admit that my speculations could be way off base, but the physics of nuclear emissions fundamentally change the RFI story - in one way or another.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:34 PM
Stanton Friedman is the man to answer this definitively. John, and Warren's exposure smacks of either exposure to unshielded nuclear devices or incredibly high Terahertz devices. Either the whole wood and many more participants should have severe injuries, John as targeted or he got much closer.

I think the most important thing is that John got the treatment he needs, and I hope he is recovering well. I hope one day we discover what did this to him - and possibly others.

I'd like to sign off by presenting what I consider to be a close relative of the quintessential villain of the piece... (the nuclear device powering it, at least)

edit on 4-1-2016 by ctj83 because: description

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:47 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Great thread and good research.

As you are aware, we have both been discussing the RFI on a previous thread. Your possible theory on the power source of the craft has offered a possible explanation to why we had a 5 or 6 minute delay in us coming to terms with what we had witnessed.

If the air was live with a static electric field, one of the human effects to such a field is a delay in reaction times. This may give an reason as to why we drove on for that period of time before we had the " Wow what have we seen " factor.

Just my theory but it may give a possible explanation.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:50 PM

originally posted by: ctj83
Stanton Friedman is the man to answer this definitively. John, and Warren's exposure smacks of either exposure to unshielded nuclear devices or incredibly high Terahertz devices. Either the whole wood and many more participants should have severe injuries, John as targeted or he got much closer.

I think the most important thing is that John got the treatment he needs, and I hope he is recovering well. I hope one day we discover what did this to him - and possibly others.

I'd like to sign off by presenting what I consider to be a close relative of the quintessential villain of the piece... (the nuclear device powering it, at least)

What is that? A NERVA propulsion (rocket) motor?
edit on 4/1/16 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:17 PM
If it were his mitral valve that was damaged, wouldn't that be evidence of alpha or beta radiation in the atmosphere? Radioactive isotopes would have been absorbed through the lungs into the bloodstream where they would have released particles of radiation. Where the blood was most oxygenated and concentrated would have had the most damage.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: spirit_horse

I think so.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: stormcell

I think it's a possibility, but unlikely at the dosage, unless the exposure was over a very extended period. I'd consider that if it wasn't for Warrens own radiation injuries, and the Retina Flash burns.

Typically, this injury is related to radiation cancer treatment, taking 15-20 years to appear. Such treatment uses high energy, focussed exposure to the chest area, not usually gas.

Still, a very interesting hypothesis, suggesting some form of severe or extended nuclear emissions.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:42 PM
Excellent post, great insight
Thank you

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:50 PM
Nice piece of work ctj83. Duly starred and flagged.

There are so many variables (and possibly false trails) with the Rendlesham incident. Even with your method of taking just one small known fact (i.e John Burroughs damaged heart) there is still a lot left open to speculation. I think you have done your best to address it.

Interesting that the Halt tape (made two nights after the supposed original encounter with the 'craft') claims readings at the 'alleged landing site' as “minor clicks” and “three to four units”, i.e. 0.03 to 0.04 mR/h. Although Nick Pope maintains that they were "10 times background level".

The findings Nick Pope claims were however later refuted by Giles Cowling (who originally replied to his query ) :

“In my original discussions with Mr Pope I did indeed state that the readings were around 10 times normal background levels, provided that the instrument was appropriate for measuring background radiation (at the time of our discussions he could not state what the instrument was), calibrated and being used/interpreted correctly. I share the NRPB view that the use of a high-range survey instruments to measure (accurately) environmental levels of radiation is somewhat questionable and this must throw some doubt on the validity of the data reported.”

Of course they may have got the site wrong and nothing landed there at all!

There is a video of Larry Warren claiming John Burroughs was actually on top of the craft made in the 1990s which gives legs to your theory.

Part 1

Part 2 (the story relating to John Burroughs starts around 2:40 in)_

Many will claim inconsistencies with Larry Warren's portrayal of events here. But it's really up to everyone to decide for themselves.

Regards MM
edit on 4/1/16 by mirageman because: edit

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: alldaylong

This post felt a bit too lengthy for that thread, and I worried it might derail it. All these encounters seem to feature a device which kicks out a lot of emissions. It sounds like a prototype to me, not refined technology.

If this is ET, or an 'other' then it seems like we are not too far behind them in certain aspects of their technology. That actually may explain why we don't see overt action, or hostile action very often.

I have a hard time believing this was a US airforce device as they have been quite detached from much that has gone on. If it was a USAF device, I suspect it was stolen or interfered with.

If it was another terrestrial actor (unlikely to be Warsaw Pact), then I suspect they removed or could not complete much of the shielding due to weight concerns.

I have a strong suspicion on why one vehicle was in the forest, what was actually there and what was creating some of the physical effects around the vehicle. However, I've not finished that research yet.

Your sighting is further evidence of a nut and boots craft.

The ability of a natural phenomena to product that much radiation over a sustained period seems very unlikely, if it is natural, it has to be connected to the Hessdalen phenomena - and I've seen nothing in terms of emissions which ties up.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for those MM. I don't think I've seen these before

The lack of massive amounts of background radiation, lends further credence to Burroughs getting incredibly close to the device for a few minutes at least. As much as it would fit nicely with my hypotheses I'm not sure I believe Nicks claim of 10x.

Whilst I still believe an unsheilded nuclear reactor is at the center of this, I also strongly suspect the use of a terahertz system. I need to do more research there though,

Why would Burrough's (and Warren) show radiation injuries very closely resembling consequences from radiation cancer treatment, yet the ground be unaffected? That bothers me,

If the radiation wounds suffered by Burrough's were not from this event, then I'm baffled as to the state of affairs with the VA and DOD / the reversal of the off duty claim. I wouldn't rule it out, but that would mean a separate and incredibly serious nuclear incident.

Considering Warrens claims of Haemostatis (blood coming the skin) on his back several decades before Burrough's claim, it does add some weight to his claims of an encounter and the exposure being either part of that event or just before.

Mirage, whatever false trails there are (no doubt many) I strongly believe that there is medical evidence for:
- multiple participants exposed to unsheilded nuclear reactor

- Medical evidence indicating retina damage through ultra violet radiation

- Strong suggestion of strong magnetic fields causing temporal lobe interference

- written testimony of numerous lights that were either decoys or plasma

- likely static electricity

That leaves me with roughly the same thoughts I outlined. logically I can't boil things down further than this:

- an unrelated nuclear accident immediately before RFi
- radiation exposure from a human source (actor Unknown - neither USAF or Warsaw fit)
- radiation from an ET craft created by a civilisation less than 100 years ahead, that needs bright flashing lights and leaks various emissions so badly it must be a rush job

The fourth seems unlikely:
- a weapon that uses ionising radiation (and bright flashing lights to lure people in. The weapon can take decades to have any effect

The unlikely outsider is a Hessdalen style phenomena with a power source we do not understand, that is drawn to nuclear weapons dumps.

I cannot see any other option that fits the few strong pieces of evidence we have and I'm convinced the answer will turn out to be one of these five, and most likely in the first three.

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:26 AM
a reply to: ctj83

Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated.

I had decided to do a little research into the location of Hockley Heath Warwickshire where we had the sighting on December 24th 1980.
To my amazement i have found that the field where the " craft " was located was in fact a former RAF Base which closed in 1948. If this has any relevance i have no idea, however i found this information interesting.

Here is a link to RAF Hockley Heath

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:05 AM
a reply to: mirageman

That was interesting, if disturbing MM.

I'm going to discount the more paranormal aspects to focus on the nuts and bolts aspects, because there appears to be a plausible narrative emerging here.

Interesting that Warren talks about Burrough's suffering severe health implications from riding on the craft for 10m. This video comes so far before the current battle to get Johns medical records declassified that it seems likely that Warren is speaking of the the radiation injuries resulting directly from physical contact with the craft.

The second 'wow' moment is that Warren claims that Burrough's was off duty and out of uniform. That would strongly fit in with the DODs denial of Burrough's claim due to him being off duty.

It seems logical to assume, due to the confirmation of the health injury and off duty situations, two decades after this video, that Warren is essentially being truthful about them.

On the third night Burrough's was off duty, and in the parking lot. Seeing the second, smaller vehicle he climbed upon the craft and was carried 10 metres. During those few moments he received a large does of ionising radiation.

This would explain both why John got a far higher dose of radiation than anyone, and why the DOD bounced back his claim due to him 'not being on duty'.

That claim simply couldn't hold water for the Penniston Burrough alleged encounter, as both were on duty and Burrough's did no pt get close to the object.

It would be very interesting if Burrough's or someone else could clarify when the DOD were saying Burrough's was off duty and why that time period figured in Johns claim. It seems most likely that this was related, not to his encounter with Penniston, but instead a third night encounter that I've never heard him refer to...

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:00 PM
a reply to: ctj83

I believe John Burroughs suffered ill effects not longer after the incident

In 1979, Burroughs passed the USAF entrance physical and was assigned to RAF Woodbridge, where, in December, 1980 he was exposed to the effects of an anomalous vehicle. From the moment of the event, Burroughs suffered from a variety of symptoms, including those of eye, throat, and gum disease.

In the summer of 1981, Burroughs made a visit to a civilian emergency room and was found to have an unusual heart condition. Despite this, he was allowed to stay in the military and remain on active duty.

In 1988, when Burroughs left active duty for the reserves, his exit physical records show vision and heart damage, clearly implying that he incurred disability during the term of his service.

In 2011, while attempting to diagnose unfamiliar symptoms of worsening heart problems, Burroughs' civilian doctor asked for his medical records.

After filing a 2012 claim with former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl's office seeking assistance in obtaining records, Burroughs suffered another episode of symptoms of heart disease, resulting in the implant of a pacemaker.

Full Source :

It also pretty well documented that Burroughs was off-duty and had arrived at the base in the belief something was going on in the forest again after his first encounter. You can actually hear Colonel Halt mention it on his tape.

Sgt. Ball: Burroughs and two other personnel requesting …riding on a jeep as err your location.

Lt. Colonel Halt: Tell them negative at this time. We’ll tell them when they can come out here. We don’t want them out here right now.

Which confirms his presence on the third night and that he was off duty. However John Burroughs has no memory of meeting Larry Warren out in the forest that night nor does he recall riding a triangular object of unknown origin.

The US DoD would have had to weigh up this apparent technicality of Burroughs being 'off duty' against responsibility of a duty of care by the officer in charge (Lt. Colonel Halt who was also technically off duty). Then there are also questions about why a detachment of USAF troops were wandering around on UK sovereign territory in uniform. There is also certainly information we are not privy to as well.

There are also mentions by Larry Warren that Sq Ldr Don Moreland (the RAF Liaison Officer) and Gen. Gordon Williams (USAF) were present on the 3rd night in that video. Don Moreland was on leave in Wales and Gordon Williams nowhere near the incident according to Col. Halt.

Sorry if it seems like I am drip feeding you tidbits of information followed by contradictory points. But that is the core problem with Rendlesham. I am also doing a lot of this from memory as Rendlesham is not really my first priority at present.

As for alldaylong's revelation. I would not rule out a connection either.

edit on 5/1/16 by mirageman because: typo

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: mirageman

No worries Mirage, I really appreciate it - I don't think Warrens points of difference with Halt make any material difference in most cases. I suspect Halt know far more than any of them, but feeling duty bound and wanting insurance he holds back. ! I'd forgotten about that small mention on the tape.

I'm not sure it's important (relatively) that John doesn't remember meeting Larry, or if Larry is incorrect. I don't think it takes away from the fact that John has some sort of 'much closer encounter' than the others, to get such a high dose of radiation.

I'd suggest four possible explanations:
- Due to close proximity - John's memory was scrambled by the 'UAP Radiation'
- John does not wish to talk about the event
- Larry misremembers
- Larry has embellished

1,2,3 seem fine and don't materially alter the RFI - so I'm happy not to dig there. A confirmation either way wouldn't change much. 4 would be odd as it would be creating a scenario to explain an otherwise puzzlingly high rate of exposure for Burroughs.

i don't think we've had an official account from John about what part of the RFI he thinks his exposure occurred on? I think we're left with one firm conclusion:

The RFI involved a nuclear incident - be that an accident, or exposure to unshielded nuclear reactions.

To my mind, there can be no doubt of this.

Which leaves only two possible scenarios. John either was exposed by the craft at a distance, which is the only encounter he talks about. Or there was a second event, where the device got much closer to him.

If John did have a separate encounter - it potentially boosts Warren's claims of his own encounter (again with radiation and retina injuries) and multiple vehicles.

if there was no second encounter for Burroughs - it does little to harm Warren's claims and leaves us with no rational way to explain John's RAD exposure, beyond a a targeted Ray gun, that was not fired at Penniston, Halt et al.

My instincts and my (Occums) razor say that a second encounter is by far the better explanation.

Personally I don't need to see any more evidence of massive ionised radiation exposure. I'm convinced of that - be it terrestrial, natural or other.

What I don't see is why the need for such a unshielded - 20th century power source.

It's funny how so many of the events revolve around nuclear power. Roswell - the atomic bomber group. Cash Landrum - radiation burns (if true), Bennewitze - Manzano weapons dump.

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: alldaylong

With your encounter - did you see any other cars or people notice the device? Was any sound or interference heard on the radio?

Do you know of any hangers, or storage areas near there?

Also, I'm looking for a location that would have housed facilities for submarine communications or sonar. I know that there was one in the UK near one of the famous UK events, but I'm struggling to find it.

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:00 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Here are a few answers to your appreciated questions:-

With your encounter - did you see any other cars or people notice the device? Was any sound or interference heard on the radio

The sighting occurred on a quite rural country road. The road was skirted by fields and trees on either side. No foot pedestrians where around due the the location of the road. The nearest building where a couple of miles away.

I do remember for a fact that no other vehicles passed us in either direction. As it was Christmas Eve, the roads where quite as i would assume most people had stayed at home preparing for Christmas Day.

I do also recall as a fact that we did not have the radio on in the car. My brother-in-law at the time whose car we where in, was a big fan of the band " The Clash " They had released a new albums a week or two earlier, he had bought the cassette version of the album and it was playing on the car cassette player. I can't recall if there was any " interference " while the cassette was playing.

Do you know of any hangers, or storage areas near there?

The only facility i knew of that type was a very large Ministry Of Defence Storage Depot at Long Marston, which is 20 miles from Hockley Heath. I have enclosed map of the location for reference.

This Storage Depot was very large ( i believe it housed 45 miles of railway track inside its perimeters ) I have no idea what was stored there. This Depot also had many large Hangers. The Depot closed in the 1990's and is now used to store obsolete railway rolling stock. I have enclosed a link which maybe of interest. It does show some of the Hangers. Apologies if you don't like trains.

Also, I'm looking for a location that would have housed facilities for submarine communications or sonar. I know that there was one in the UK near one of the famous UK events, but I'm struggling to find it.

As the location of our sighting was about 100 miles from the nearest coast, i would doubt there would be any such facilities in that area.

Hope this information maybe of help.
edit on 6-1-2016 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:12 PM
a reply to: ctj83

I've placed a link to this thread in the previous Rendlesham thread as one day they will both be lost amongst the plethora or ancient posts on here and it may prove useful to someone in the future.

John Burroughs has said an awful lot about the event even on this very site - see :

One of his comments from 10 years ago was

To all who feels Larry Warren was there please understand he was not. He took Adrian Bustinza's story and ran with it!!!! How do I know this? I was there!!! “

That position has changed somewhat in recent years. Although Warren's story was sidelined in the "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest" book (penned with Penniston and Nick Pope), Burroughs has had Larry Warren on his radio show with Adrian Bustinza too.

Link to the segment :

He also made a statement about his heart problems :

U.S. Government’s De Facto Acknowledgement of the Existence of UFOs which seems to point to the injuries occurring on the first night. But it is not clear and not in any detail.

As regards to John's injuries I am no expert on the effects of radiation but have you ruled out microwaves? There were rumours they were used against the protesters at Greenham Common around the same time as the incident.

And yes there most definitely is a strange relationship between UFO sightings and nuclear installations. Especially when the military are involved!

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:58 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Hey MM, I think your referring to 'Active Denial', which seems to be the non lethal microwave weapon used at Greenham common. Also, I suspect (as I imagined you do) that it was used against Paul Bennewitz.

I think we can rule out microwaves / active denial on the ground that microwaves are non ionising radiation. In other words, they aren't stripping off layers of electrons and doing serious tissue damage.

The gum, throat and heat damage is too much evidence of high dose ionising radiation.

I do suspect the Invovment of terra hertz radiation... But I lack the circumstantial evidence to present this hypothesis.

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:28 PM
a reply to: ctj83

Yes "Active Denial" was what I was trying to remember. The circumstantial stuff does point to exposure to something nuclear. Although it's still a mystery why Burroughs seemed to suffer the most of all the witnesses.

I don't know if I've pointed you to this before (apologies if I have) but Kit Green also commented on John Burroughs' injuries in another thread of mine. Mainly here thanks to the efforts of the site owner Springer (Mark Allen) :

.... Broad-band Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation caused the injuries. The RF is identified in a dozen classified and a half-dozen unclassified studies on cardiological and neurological injuries ... not thousands of reports. Very, very few physicians even care about this arcane area of research...and fewer know about the injuries sustained by near-field (< 100 M) to humans. The data is sparse, it is not properly Peer-reviewed, it is not understood, it is not the subject of current research. And that is the truth.

If you don't know who Kit Green is then I think you will find out very shortly!

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in