The Problem I Have With The Rendlesham Forrest Incident

a reply to: R1CK3O

Any thoughts? Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing a lot because the case was fairly complex to start with. One witness claims to have seen a 'physical craft' in the official witness statements. Even he claims he didn't actually write it but he has been the go to guy for documentaries etc because his story is the most "sci-fi'd" story. Now the petty squabbling, the inflated accounts and the general reluctance to work together towards a solution have made the whole incident into a soap opera.

a reply to: crayzeed

But what I can't get my head round is Jim Pennistons notebook. Though he was the witness to touch the object and made drawings of the craft and it's marking, which he showed after he had left the military. It was quite a number of years till he came forward with additional information about his diary, the binary code pages. That does not sit right with me. Why not show all the information in his notebook at that time.

We can actually prove that the co-ordinates hidden in the 'binary code' were lifted from the internet. Obviously there was no internet in 1980.

a reply to: KansasGirl

My big beef with Rendlesham is how many of the main witnesses' stories have changed dramatically over the years, in the direction of stranger than at first and more ET-y. Even Halt's story changed. But the big one, the big change, is the guy who drew in his notebook that night.

Yep KG he evens reads all the criticisms and 'adapts' his answers as time passes to gloss over discrepancies and relegate other witnesses in the story.

a reply to: airforce47

What I can tell you is that I was stationed at Ramstein at the time of the incident which was Headquarters for USAFE (US Air Forces Europe) Command. I knew very quickly thru the network that something important had happened but not the details....

Yes indeed there is an official MoD record that confirms General Gabriel the then Head of USAFE personally took 'tape recorders' away from the base in the days following the incident.

...a friend of mine was stationed at the American base at the time of the incident. He, and many of the soldiers stationed there, were transferred to other bases very soon after this happened. He said they were split up to keep them from talking to each other about what happened.

Unless you can find any proof then that remains ufo hearsay. Everyone finished their regular tours of duty. The only exception I believe is a female Lieutenant (she was involved in the little known about 2nd night) and was so traumatized she left the Air Force shortly after the incident.

Please understand. I am not saying 'nothing happened. But at the posts above and see how loose the facts have become in people's minds because of embellishments and misunderstandings over the story.

I wish I could reply to everyone individually, but I don't have the time.

Let me start by saying, I'm not saying my analysis of the situation is RIGHT, some people seem to be getting overly offended because they think my analysis is wrong.

I'm not saying I am right or that it couldn't have happened because of this.

Something happened that night for sure and I'm just trying to make sense of it like the rest of you are.

What I'm saying is a craft would surely have difficulty landing in a dense forest unless as some have suggested these were not physical objects.

As for the person who mentioned that it's silly that I'm thinking about the trees damaging the craft, you're totally misunderstanding me.

As far as I'm aware, apart from the imprints in the ground left by the craft, there wasn't any reported damage to the trees which you would expect. Even IF there were a 'force field' protecting the craft you'd still expect to see damage to the trees.

The only explanation is that this object was either VERY small or had some tech that could make it pass through physical objects.

As for the person saying that they live near forests and that the trees aren't that close together, you're missing the point entirely.

It doesn't matter how close together they were, there were still a lot of trees in the area. No HUMAN or MAN MADE craft can land in a forest, it would damage the craft or cause a crash, it's just not possible.

So like I said, it's either able to shift from physical to non-physical form or was very small, even landing a 5 or 5ft craft in a forest would be difficult. It just doesn't make sense to be logistically, surely they would land and take off in a more open area like a field, I think it was a few days later they all seen the craft again in an open field, this is more plausible to me.

I'm just trying to understand the physics of how a craft they say was physical and of a reasonable size managed to land and take off again in a dense forest full of trees. I can't get my head around that.

a reply to: R1CK3O

Have you ever considered that there wasn't actually a physical craft? Only one witness has claimed to seeing a 'craft'. No one else saw anything but strange lights. Why are you so hung up on there being a craft?


Landing site picture originally taken the morning after the incident.

The UK police felt that there was nothing of interest there and the markings were similar to animal scratchings.

The trees were supposedly already damaged when the supposed landing site was inspected by Colonel Halt. But there was a large number already marked for felling in the forest prior to the incident. When they were cut down in 1981 this was then seen as a conspiracy to 'destroy' evidence.


Above trees marked for felling by Forestry Commission 1983

See : www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not hung up on their being a craft.

For goodness sake, I wish people stopped getting uptight about what they think I think and feel.

Yes, personally, I believe there was a craft of some kind seen that night.

No, I don't think that's set in stone or I am correct, I'm open to discussion and all possibilities.

Just because you have your own personal opinions and preconceptions does not make you right.

The bottom line is nobody knows for sure what happened that night and regardless what we think and feel it's all speculation at the end of the day so people need to stop getting uptight about others thoughts and feelings, lets openly discuss this.

Don't think there was a craft that night? Tell me why! Convince me!

I'm open to learning, being educated and hearing others opinions.

All I can say Mirageman, he told this to me not very long after it happened, so imbelishment of the incident was not part of the equation, at least in his situation. As far as the others are concerned, I can;t speak for them. a reply to: mirageman

originally posted by: charlyv
8-bit ASCII is just too much a human invention. I mean, if you (ET) already knew the letters you had to use, and it was English, then why go through the encoding of 8-bit characters when you easily could have used letters.

Fascinating question. Indeed, why? We tend to see this from a human viewpoint, but lets' assume they are not human. They may not even be able to "see" in our spectrum, so they can't even "see" the letters we use. Say they send a probe (from another time, planet, realm, whatever). Now, say that "the probe" will do roughly what our probes do: it "lands", then sits there and starts observing, using equipment that registers what normally their senses would register. Now remember, they may not have our type of eyes and ears, but perhaps other senses: they may, for example be able to monitor electron movement and use that (electricity) to communicate themselves. It then makes perfect sense that their probes will simply ignore visible light but instead will register electron movement, similarly to us making pictures to capture visible light reflections, which our eyes can register.

Now, after a while the probe learns that on this weird planet there must also be some kind of intelligent life, as the probe observes that whatever life forms there are also seem to exchange data using regular patterns projectedon top of electron movements. It also learns that these weird carbon based bipeds respond to the patterns and they figure out that we must be the intelligent life forms here and similar to what they do, we seem to use some kind of electron based communication system.

So, after a while their system has figured out how to send out messages, but it only can do so using - indeed - binary code, that WE see as ASCII, but they don't even know what it is, nor do they know what 'letters' are. They then convey messages in a crude way, using simple phrases and sometimes they get it wrong. For example, time and space may have another meaning to them. Perhaps that what we read as "8000 AD" actually means "from 8000 ly away", I don't know.

But actually, yes, it would be possible that some strange probe tried to convey messages in ASCII, without even knowing the letters that form the base of the messages.

a reply to: R1CK3O

I'm not hung up on their [sic] being a craft.

For goodness sake, I wish people stopped getting uptight about what they think I think and feel.

Yes, personally, I believe there was a craft of some kind seen that night.

OK so you do actually believe there was a craft and are obviously a bit up tight about your belief being challenged. Why do you believe that then? We are open to discussion and possibilities.

originally posted by: zeta55
All I can say Mirageman, he told this to me not very long after it happened, so imbelishment[sic] of the incident was not part of the equation, at least in his situation. As far as the others are concerned, I can;t speak for them. a reply to: mirageman

Does being told something not long after the event(s) happened equate to there being no embellisment of facts?

I met the two main characters in this story (Holt and Henneson if my memory is right) at a convention a couple years ago. The main problem I had with this story is the binary message written from memory. If the story is true I felt like it was a break away civilization because of the mention of hi brasil

Penniston, not hennison

a reply to: R1CK3O

Colonel halt said the light appeared to be manoeuvring around/ between the tree's,
The alleged landing area from the first night
was large enough for a small craft and apparently the tree canopy above the area had damaged branches.
Personally I believe something happened there over the xmas week of 1980 and the lighthouse theory cannot explain all of what was sighted by the military and civilian witnesses, also the area has had lots of reports of paranormal activity over many years.

Maybe I should have said he was less likely to embellish his story since it was soon after the event. I stand corrected. a reply to: mirageman

a reply to: zeta55

Halt has confirmed that regular Alert practice drills occurred at the bases - could your friend have experienced such an alert two days before the RSI and read more into it after the event? The general atmosphere after the RSI is perhaps best exemplified (the 3rd time I've typed this but it's pertinent to your post) by Halt, Commander Williams and family, plus numerous base personnel gleefully rolling up to unsuccessfully witness another UFO reported by Steve LaPlume in mid-January 1981 (detailed by LaPlume himself in Mirrorman's thread).

Ironically, the January UFO was a much more defined triangular craft of massive size that flew slowly over LaPlume - who at least sounds believable and genuinely concerned by the event, and tellingly unimpressed by Halt & Williams' light-hearted attitude.

I see no reason to separate the January account from the overall RFI narrative, so ergo, I'm open to reported incidents BEFORE the main event.

Are you able to contact your friend for further info?

originally posted by: wobbs62
a reply to: R1CK3O

... also the area has had lots of reports of paranormal activity over many years.

Indeed it has - including tales of local witchcraft and sundry sightings of robed 'little people' stalking the forest. Most entertaining!

Perhaps not enough is made of the High Strangeness 'hotspot' aspect of the region, which could arguably have significant bearings on the RSI itself.

Its the old saying you can't see the forest for the trees.
This happened near RAF Bentwaters which was historically a US base for the 81st Fighter Wing.
Using branch logic doesn't help much as there are too many esoteric details that have been hopelessly confused.
You can get a tan from sun radiation which may have been the intended clue.

I've only got the one witness drawing to go on, but it looks like a familiar composite craft.
Unfortunately that is now a tattoo in my memory.

"I also don't buy the lighthouse explanation for many reasons, to me it just doesn't add up and I find it highly unlikely that it was a lighthouse light that people were seeing that night.?"

Ianrid gives an explanation in the other Rendleshem novel err thread


Ianrid also quotes another prominent Rendleshem investigator who eventually came to the same conclusion

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: KansasGirl
My big beef with Rendlesham is how many of the main witnesses' stories have changed dramatically over the years, in the direction of stranger than at first and more ET-y. Even Halt'a story changed. But the big one, the big change, is the guy who drew in his notebook that night. Suddenly, years and years Nd years later, he tells us about the binary code "download" he got? Why did we not hear about that until decades later, when interest in the case kicked up? That's a problem.

NOW we have some discrepancies! These are more along the lines of what I was thinking.

That binary code... it doesn't make sense to me. If they could give him binary that translates to english, why not just give him Emglish? They clearly understood English, so why convert it to binary? I could think of a few reasons I suppose, but it still just seems pretty fishy to me.

THANK YOU- yes, that stupid binary code! Would it not be more difficult to remember and then write down 100 lines of random series of 1's and 0's than it would be to receive and remember "Hey, we're you guys from 8000 years in the future. Also look into this tiny island around Ireland."

Ridiculous.

originally posted by: airforce47
What I can tell you is that I was stationed at Ramstein at the time of the incident which was Headquarters for USAFE (US Air Forces Europe) Command. I knew very quickly thru the network that something important had happened but not the details. The incidents were real and both men had trouble getting the VA to grant them disabilities suffered during the encounters. It's another example of the possible existence on Earth of an unknown sentient intelligence with possible multiple species. We do know they happen but not what they are. My best,

Or, it's an example of clandestine military forces testing out or using very secret technogy, and doing everything they can to deflect from anyone ever considering that possibility, including getting servicemen there at the time to later produce some "binary code" message that the UFO crowd would eat up like candy as proof of ET/time travelers/inter dimensional nefarious entities/take your paranormal pick.

a reply to: KansasGirl

KG we've proved the binary code couldn't have contained those co-ordinates in 1980 so they were created at a later date (probably after Google Earth became available).

Here is what they originally looked like on the 2011 Ancient Aliens episode when fed into a 'computer' running a binary to text decoder. Gibberish.



Taken as a still from Ancient Aliens : www.youtube.com...

They had to "clean it up" by removing 'noise' to arrive at this. There is no decimal point in the binary code for the co-ordinates (even after cleaning up) so they must have made that up too. It even has spelling mistakes!



Google Earth used TeleAtlas for it's mapping between June 2008 and October 2009.

By opening Google Earth back in 2009 if you searched for “Woodbridge”, it would use the following co-ordinate of latitude, longitude: 52.094253, 1.313127.

Penniston's cleaned up 'binary co-ordinates' are supposedly 52.094253N 13.13127W

This would be exactly the same point that the Tele Atlas assigned as Woodbridge town centre but shifting the co-ordinates from east to west it miraculously became Hi-Brasil (well a place in the Ocean in reality). A mistake easy for an American to make as everything stateside (except the extremes of Alaska) is to the West of the Greenwich Meridian). Unfortunately Woodbridge is to East of the meridian as it runs straight down one side Britain. So the co-ordinates point to the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Ireland. Whoops!

Now here's the important bit.

The last four digits in mapping co-ordinates are like a signature for every individual map provider. The map maker will select a centre of the town for their maps and the last four digits will almost certainly be unique as they point to a place just a few inches in size. Penniston's co-ordinates exactly match those of Google Earth the year before he released the binary codes (2009). Google and Tele Atlas maps did not exist in 1980. Google no longer use them today. Penniston has 6 other places listed in his binary code and the co-ordinates all match Google Earth.

So what a massive, massive co-incidence that Penniston's are an exact match! More than a billion to one. The conclusion has to be that Penniston (or an accomplice) lifted the co-ordinates from the internet thinking the first ones pointed at Woodbridge. But he's messed up and then had to go along with the Hi-Brasil explanation. Hi-Brasil is a myth and does not exist.

At present Google will take you to 52.095948, 1.312699 if you search for Woodbridge.

So it's almost like the whole thing was created for entertainment purposes for Ancient Aliens and then lead to conferences and a book deal.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

You can still build on this part of the story.

Outatime

a reply to: mirageman

MM this is getting into a right old mess. Do any of the readers keep up with the latest?

I can see this is so lob sided. I cant any longer keep up. Not disputing what you say MM. But Osborn has given some explanations only but two days ago.

Do you feel any of that is valid?.


m.facebook.com...