Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?

originally posted by: mirageman
This all sounds very fishy doesn't it?

I suspect it's actually sharp and pointy.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I bought a copy on kindle the one day it was on the market.

If anything happens to that copy, I will take amazon to court.

Kev

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
...why is his book so hard to get hold of?

And why hasn't Pike just posted it online himself after all these years? Hardly an impossible proposal of he's keen to get the word out. What happened when Isaac Koi contacted him about this (or vice versa)? Why did Penniston get ants in his pants about it?



Some thoughts for MM:

I've spent a while going through the entire case from top to bottom, using your original thread, other ATS threads and old Rendlesham forums, throwing out chaff and focusing on what wheat there is, and only ending up with more questions.

There seems to be substantive info - and not just from Chris Armold - pointing to Halt and a team first plodding through the forest for hours on end on the SECOND night (26th - 27th) but seeing nothing. Presumably Penniston's 'landing site' was the focus. Was Tamplin's emotional 'breakdown' the event that inspired the trek, or an incidental detail?

If so, what was the sight investigated on the THIRD night? Presumably the one witnessed by personnel earlier that evening who saw multi-coloured lights over a yellow mist. Was Bustinza part of that early party, and did that inform his later interviews as well as his later trek with Halt? Why were there personnel wandering through UK territory anyway whilst the Xmas party was swinging? Who gave permission? Was there a routine drill going on?

Why did Halt once say that the 'main event' occurred after lights started beaming down in the field? Was the half-hour break in the tape after 3.30am the timing of such an event? Does this explain Bustinza's 'machine' the size of a house? (who had no reason to lie in separate interviews). Why did Halt later tell Burroughs (when lights were still beaming down, after 4am) that there had been a "landing" in the field?

Why was there activity in the forest for the next two days surrounding the arrival of a major aircraft, according to Burroughs? Was this linked to Bustinza's bizarre notion that the 'machine' was repaired by the USAF two days after his experience? Does this confirm a military experiment/machine at the heart of the matter rather than something more exotic?

Those are my only questions that remain after an exhausting overview.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Well, it's entirely possible that only people who had been previously
'irradiated', 'chemically doped' or possibly had a natural 'antenna'
would have been able to see anything.

I'm not certain this idea has been given enough consideration.

Maybe JP was a 'natural'.. but maybe others needed to be irradiated/doped
prior to a succeeding night to see anything.

That might have been the entire test..

and the reason that events went on for 3 or 4 nights.

I don't know.

Seems worth discussing.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

That might have been the entire test..

and the reason that events went on for 3 or 4 nights.

I feel we're getting warmer, Kev - just as well with Xmas coming.

Burroughs' comments about the arrival of a C-5 after the third night are the most fascinating and potentially important I have yet read.

Halt said one of the things they came in to check was the codes in hot row... That was what he stated and I can say no more on that. There was also statements made about a special team that came in on it with equipment.

They parked the C-5 back in an area where it was impossible to see what they were doing and they took care of their own security. I can also say there was a lot of Helicopters flying around the forest and vehicles going into the woods.

The Russian part has been talked about for years in many different ways. One of the theories was we brought down a Russian Sat and we came in to recover it.

It also was stated they could have tried something on us. I do not feel it had anything to do with inside the Base but an outside source!

John Burroughs, 29th Feb 2008


Helicopters were claimed by a couple of personnel on the third night, but did they confuse it with a FOURTH night surrounding the C-5 activities?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I'd like to compare RFI with the Colares, Brazil incident.

The Colares incident had all the hallmarks of people being drugged with
hallucinatory substances, while others were exposed to radiation.

Sound familiar?

Colares was in 1977...

Supposedly MK Ultra was shutdown in the late 70's.. but I don't believe
it.. I think it was just farmed out overseas..

Both Britain and Brazil are close US allies.. perfect places to continue
the research.

I think that that with the BOL phenomenon in the Suffolk area, 'they'
got more than they bargained for.. but it was still mk ultra testing
and work in the suffolk area I postulate.. and they certainly could
have been crazy enough to test in the twin bases area.

Just say the words "human experimentation" to any number of folks,
and you will get a rise out of them.. or get a threat made to your
life...

I think we are more than warm..

but proving is different than postulating of course.

Kev

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

There seems to be substantive info - and not just from Chris Armold - pointing to Halt and a team first plodding through the forest for hours on end on the SECOND night (26th - 27th) but seeing nothing. Presumably Penniston's 'landing site' was the focus. Was Tamplin's emotional 'breakdown' the event that inspired the trek, or an incidental detail?

As you well know details are sparse. You may also recall Colonel Halt stated that he liked Lt. Tamplin but was not aware of her being relieved of duty, nor why she left the Air Force shortly after, until sometime in 2000s. So Halt's official answer has to be "no".

I think it was Lori Buoen who spotted lights in the forest from the East Gate and that eventually triggered Tamplin's expedition out into the forest.

Your guess is as good as mine on the fine details. I've covered some of that inbetween period between the first expedition and the Halt night here.

You should check out Colonel Conrad's statement to Dr. David Clarke here and the Rendlesham Timeline here. Both of which appear to contain inconsistencies. Conrad also gave an interview in 1983 to OMMI which is covered here.. Clear as mud.

If so, what was the sight investigated on the THIRD night? Presumably the one witnessed by personnel earlier that evening who saw multi-coloured lights over a yellow mist. Was Bustinza part of that early party, and did that inform his later interviews as well as his later trek with Halt? Why were there personnel wandering through UK territory anyway whilst the Xmas party was swinging? Who gave permission? Was there a routine drill going on?

If you read Dr. David Clarke's interview with Col. Conrad some of that third day/night is explained

By the morning of [27 December 1980] I contacted Maj Zickler for information of the alleged sighting. His information was all second hand and sketchy. Those with first hand accounts were citing career concerns as justification for remaining silent.

“Frankly at this point, Lt Col Halt and I were discussing what level of involvement was required from my office. We knew that silence would likely lead to allegation of cover up. With the rumor mill already operating it was a matter of time before the press got the story. We did not want the press to report the appearance of misinformation or cover up. We decided that a brief in-house investigation was in order. If we could find any credible evidence to justify a request for more high-tech investigators, then we would be in a position to pass the entire episode on to the British authorities

drdavidclarke.blogspot.com...

Which is a rather odd decision. Given that the incident happened off base. The Suffolk Police had been notified as per official protocols on the first night and appeared not too impressed. So why did the Base Commander feel it was OK to continue investigations before passing it on to the British Authorities? Were they really worried so much about the press that they chose to ignore the Status of Forces Agreement by once again placing troops on British territory?

Why did Halt once say that the 'main event' occurred after lights started beaming down in the field? Was the half-hour break in the tape after 3.30am the timing of such an event? Does this explain Bustinza's 'machine' the size of a house? (who had no reason to lie in separate interviews). Why did Halt later tell Burroughs (when lights were still beaming down, after 4am) that there had been a "landing" in the field?

No idea. All I know is that whilst he describes an amazing beam of light shining down at his feet and onto the base on his tape that he decided the best action was to do nothing and head back to base. I don't believe there are any local British witnesses either who can confirm the amazing light show (although not too many people are out at that time there may well have been a few on the way home from Christmas parties).

Can you think why Halt decided to spend a couple of hours in the woods and then do nothing at all?

He was asked once why he didn't call in the cavalry? But his response was that his own security officers back on base weren't that interested. Deferring to his lower ranked officers. If you remember Halt was left to write the memo to the MoD too. His superiors choosing not to even support him with a covering note.

Why was there activity in the forest for the next two days surrounding the arrival of a major aircraft, according to Burroughs?

It all seems to lead back to a story that documents, tape recordings and maybe other items were removed and taken to Rammstein in Germany. We Brits even seemed a little disgruntled by it.



But the actual details are very hard to piece together. You may find a lot more questions to ask after reading that Bentwaters Timeline.

a reply to: mirageman

Any theories about why the Yanks took evidence away to Germany?

Just out of curiosity, is there ANY relatively well-documented thing
about RFI that is even slightly compelling or 'smoking gun' to you,
or are things such a horrid mess, that nothing rises to that level
for you?

Assuming you say, "it's all a complete mess"... do you believe that's
due to human nature and people getting all excited (over maybe
nothing or nothing much) or is it your opinion that many
witnesses had their brains stirred?

On that note..

if a few people had their brains stirred, that might be one thing..
to silence a few of the more hysterical.. but if even people
like "cookie" or other random passers by had their brains
stirred as well... then that would indicate that some
big hairy deal really did occur.. but I don't know if it's fair
to say that's true or not.

Not everyone that I know of made claims about harsh interrogation,
but that doesn't mean anything either of course.

Kev

Oh dear, didn't take long for the trolls to start. Well to avoid any further distress to Andrew's family In what has been a difficult year I'll make no further posts. Good luck finding your answer, you will need it, you only go round in circles.

a reply to: mirageman


Ta for the responses, MM. Questions will probably float over this case for years if not decades more, especially considering those niggling inconsistencies.

The bitter irony, of course, is that if a major ET landing event did occur after Halt said he was heading back to base at 3.30am (remember he did leave a final remark at 4am about lights STILL beaming down, perhaps after meeting Burroughs) the tape would be edited, the senior staff would say what they have already said, airmen sworn to secrecy aside from lights in the sky (except for rebels like Bustinza), and the MOD given a sanitised memo (which it was, as stated by Halt).

If it were a military secret op (most likely now for me), the above may apply even MORE.

So, we're stuck, whichever route we take. The responses from Halt (ie the limits of his own disclosure, as he readily admits) and his superiors would remain identical. As for Halt's later ET proclamation, it simply nudges me further towards JB's notion of an external secret op.

Hence the feeling of nausea I got from my extensive overview after four to five months lurking and six weeks posting in this thread. God knows how YOU feel after FIVE years wallowing in this, MM, but you have my utmost respect!

Until 'Capel Green' and TTSA‘s supposed RFI revelation on 25th Oct, I'm all Rendleshamed out, lol.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I have to ask you.. in my five years of examining RFI,
the possibility never even crossed my mind, that a toy model
"UFO" with aliens in it could have landed there.

Did you ever actually think that, I don't know, maybe 6 inch tall aliens
might have landed in that what? 6 foot tall (really tiny) little "craft"
that "left marks hard to distinguish from rabbit scratchings"?

The thought of that had never even occurred to me. I mean, literally..
up to this very moment.. I'd never considered that as being on the
menu of choices.

**head scratch**

Kev

a reply to: SkywatcherUK

Trolls?

Just in case you are Andrew (and that's what you are really embarrassed about) then you should know that at certain times the trolls have been much, much worse to those who dare criticise the gospel of Popular Ufotainment (Backed by 3 letter boys back in Uncle Sam's backyard). Understand who your friends really are and that some of us on here actually admire the work put into that book.

Of course if none of that's true then;

Why would any more posts you make have to involve Andrew or his family?

Why would your future posts induce further distress upon his family?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear


Entirely possible, Kev. We're just not wired to initially consider it. Perhaps we're size-ist.

I have a sudden urge to rewatch Jack Arnold's 'The Incredible Shrinking Man' (1957).

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Later Kev. It's Saturday here in Europe.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Oh if I can find 'sentient energy' credible.. I could
also consider 6 inch tall beings flying across the
Universe to confuse a few people in the woods,
then to take off leaving basically no evidence.

It's just not on the top of my list.

a reply to: SkywatcherUK


Andrew Pikes book is one of my 3 prized possessions,
equal in importance to me as a museum quality
piece of history I own, that's 500 million years
old. No troll here!

a reply to: mirageman

One more thing - oh, dear, I've become Lt Columbo - in defence of Halt's 3.30 remark about returning to base. It's worth remembering that Chuck had just finished calling Watton Eastern Radar at 3.25 to report a "UFO".

The only person to use the word "UFO" that night?

One could interpret that as an escalation in his interest, rather than giving up per se, despite negative radar. As we know, things were far from over when he met Burroughs, Ball still amazed at the blue lights beaming down, including one passing through a truck (a rerun of Tamplin's event) before shooting straight up. And then JB's own contact, by permission of Halt.

My only conclusion is the tape was edited - or rather Halt stopped propping a mic against the speaker outputting the original tape.

As for Conrad saying he saw squat from his house during this action? Perhaps he's a goddamn liar, hence the conundrum in my last post.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

It's rather weird..

There may only be a couple of the regular posters, who are not
actually one of the players, or knows one of the players when
it comes to RFI.

It's very inbred!

And since TTSA will functionally be destroying the RFI
narrative.. maybe, as one of the only 'real posters',
it might be time to stop posting here.

Then everyone can just play with each other.

LOL.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

You said:


So, we're stuck....

You clearly are but with respect, not everyone in the RFI game is.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You said about stopping posting before. Yet you still post and as you seem to think you have it all wrapped up surely you are just wasting time.

Just saying.