It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Rendlesham forest...conflicting information

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
One of the most highly publisized UFO cases, and like area 51, way overdone on various TV shows and elsewhere. Destination America has a new UFO show, and of course they went over what we've all heard before. But something struck me, in some accounts of the incident, it's said that there was an object with symbols on it, and one of the 2 men actually took notes and touched the object, and was blown back. In this account and some others, they don't mention it at all, and even say one of the men didn't even see the lights or whatever it was the othe r guy saw.

So...has this whole incident been altered so much over the retelling that the facts have changed? Was there an object with symbols on it, and was it touched? Or is this part totally fictional?




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

I recall the story from long ago, and I remember the craft being touched and the officer being expelled backwards while simultaneously having a huge binary code downloaded into his memory complex...



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

Yes , as with Roswell it has grown over the years , ignore what Jim Penniston says it's fiction.

I think it likely that a number of factors were in play on those nights but Aliens weren't part of the equation.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Does Penniston have any reason to lie, or has he unconsciously embellished the story as he retold it over the years?

edit on 7-5-2016 by vlawde because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

That's a question only Jim Penniston could answer with certainty but I think that as the Rendlesham story grew, thanks to the internet, the incentive to increase his roll in the story must also have grown.

His binary code invention blows anything he has to say about the incident out of the water in my view , it makes him an unreliable witness.



edit on 7-5-2016 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

Rendlesham is way more complicated than just Jim Penniston and his ever expanding tale.

But basically the bloke's story doesn't add up. He's probably lying. Some believe he's been drugged and hypnotized others think he's doing it for other reasons.

His initial witness statement says he never got closer to the object than 50m. That's about it.

In the 1990s he still hadn't got close to the craft but notice 'symbols' on it as it took off. By 2000 he'd found (a conveniently loose leaf filofax type) old notebook with they symbols and notes about the encounter. A decade later he 'remembered' touching the craft and receiving a binary code download that mysteriously could be translated into ASCII (i.e English).

None of the two witnesses standing within a few feet of him can corroborate anything but seeing lights in the distance.

We already have a number of threads on Rendlesham and if you want to read about Penniston and the rest of the story then start here.
edit on 7/5/16 by mirageman because: typo



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

I recall this story being inconsistent repeatedly. Meaning doctored testimony replacing already-doctored testimony, so the odds of the truth actually being disclosed are awfully slim.
I definitely remember one of the men talking about the symbols on the craft, and the lights, and touching it



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

The alleged events took place over three nights and the people involved had different experiences at different times during the course of these events.

TV people are notorious for exaggeration and sensationalisation so they aren't the most reliable of sources.
There have been various additional parts of the story which should be treated with extreme caution because they came to light some considerable time after the fact.

On top of all that, those involved have all claimed to have felt strange effects from being close to the object, such as time slowing down and weightiness in the limbs. They also said they were confused about some exact details themselves.

Larry Warren and Peter Robbins wrote a book about one viewpoint of the events called Left at East Gate which is worth reading.
Another book by Penniston, Burroughs and Nick Pope is called Encounter in Rendlesham Forest which gives another viewpoint.
The discrepancies between the stories have been the subject of debate for quite some time.
Look in the UFO forum (probably page1) for A Christmas story... and see if you too can let it be?
edit on 7-5-2016 by Tulpa because: durrr
I type too slow. Mirage Man beat me to it.
edit on 7-5-2016 by Tulpa because: too slow



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Ahh. Rendlesham.

Aren't there 1,786,428 threads on ATS about it already?

The OS, the conflicts, the this and that??

Guess there just isn't much going on in the UFO/Aliens world as of late.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Thanks for the info and links. I made a new thread because on most forums you get yelled at for necro-posting. Roswell has the same problems as Rendlesham, so many radically different accounts of what happened, I'm tempted to throw up my hands and assume both incidents are just fabrications...



...almost



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I have heard various versions as well. In the quick and dirty versions, they always leave out the alien symbols and the guy receiving all the images in his mind.
In the more articulately detailed versions the explain what i just outlined there.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




I recall this story being inconsistent repeatedly. Meaning doctored testimony replacing already-doctored testimony...


If you look closely at Penniston's story, you don't even need to consider how it changes (grows) over time to spot inconsistencies. He'll just as easily exhibit internal inconsistencies at any one telling. And these are much more discrediting, in my view.

Take Penniston's account, under hypnosis in 1994, of the craft he allegedly encountered being from the future. (I'm using, as source, the transcription on therendleshamforestincident.com).



Jim Penniston: ... They have to be in space to travel. They need speed to travel.
Hypnotist: To travel though time?
JP: To go backwards. They can't go forward.
H: They can't go into their future?
JP: They go to their past. It's impossible to go into the future. It takes too much energy.
H: How far into the past can they go?
JP: These ships can go forty or fifty thousand years. They can't go back much further. They might not get back.
[emphasis added]


Now, whatever your views are on time travel, whether this is possible or not, is irrelevant to the question of internal consistency here. Only, from nothing more than what Penniston is claiming here, we have beings that:


  1. Can go back in time
  2. Can't go forward in time
  3. Can 'get back' to (presumably) their own time


But, what's 3.) if it isn't what he says can't happen in 2.)?

I don't know what Penniston's driving motivation has been over these 30+ years, but whatever it is and whatever he is striving to sell us, he's no salesman. He just ain't very good at it.
edit on 21/2/2017 by Shaqmeister because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: vlawde

Regarding The Rendlesham Incident i have posted on ATS on several threads about the sighting that myself and 3 others had on the night of December 24th 1980.

In Warwickshire, 120 miles west of Rendlesham. on that night we observed a " object " on the ground that was identical to the object that landed at Renlesham two nights later.

I have no doubt that what landed in Rendlesham was genuine. The similarities of both " objects " make me state this.


edit on 21-2-2017 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

I originally posted this last spring, and have visited and revisited the Christmas thread on the topic. I'll look for your posts on the matter. Thanks



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join