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

originally posted by: mirageman
I just need to find a good robot to do the audiobook version.

Alternatively...


"HONEST+++UFOLOGY+++MUST+++BE+++EXTERMINATED!!!"

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: mirageman

John wont like reading all that. They are just about joined at the hip the two of them.

It would make a great read though .

I guess John isn't a book reader type of guy huh? Although I'd say Linda is a little old for him to be joined at the hip. Old enough to be his mother isn't she?

Despite the almost totally perfunctory narrative you often provide here on ATS it is always great to have you as an emotional barometer of many of the main characters involved in this story. Such perceptive wisdom is only to be encouraged further. Anyway I thought Grant would be more Linda's type of guy after we saw her antics in his bedroom whilst he downed a can of Moosehead.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Sounds like Discovery.

You've lost me. Sorry. Care to elaborate?

Cheers.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Let us not forget that Sgt Adrian Bustinza's arm was caught in the same light, and most likely is the other airman who successfully received compensation as well as Burroughs.

PS: Sorry if I go off on a tangent, but Bustinza is still the one RFI character who intrigues me more than any other. The Larry Warren debacle may be an over-elaborate embellishment of Bustinza's personal account and the Roberts/Ingalls pub yarn, but Bustinza's accounts (or at least one of them) remain pretty mind-blowing and the most important of all for me, perhaps emboldened by his determination to shun publicity.

Apologies for the tardy reply, busy time.

It's a tough one and one of the reasons that I am intrigued by the case is because of the huge differences in the way the "experience" has been remembered by those involved. If you read back what I wrote about the cosmonauts, there we have a consistently reported experience shared by several people. For one reason or another, they all saw/experienced the same thing. Now to me with my limited understanding, that suggests a physiological response to an environmental factor that was untraumatic, ie it did not evoke fear just wonder. If there was a psychological element, the participants were on equal footing ideologically, and therefore it evoked the same response. Of course, if we were to contact those cosmonauts now individually we may find that the details of the recollections are somewhat different...or we might not, but overall, I find that it is the way in which some of the accounts conflict with each other in the RFI that indicate to me that some attempt has been made to mess with the narrative.

Bustinza and Warren's accounts most tally with the information that appears to have been fed/leaked to Paul Begg, Brenda Butler and Bob Easton. According to those three, each was informed by a source independent of the other two. So that is three people plus Bustinza and Warren, who were recounting roughly the same narrative. While you may not be keen on the Fawcett interview, and I can understand why, it is fascinating in the fact that Fawcett is feeding the information, given to him by Warren, to Bustinza to verification. Bustinza gives up very little without prompting - it is not too far removed from a hypnosis session to my eye, and it demonstrates the importance of Warren's role in Bustinza's account, as in, would Bustinza have been able to talk about it without such prompting. In that sense, whether he was there or not, Warren is vital to the RFI narrative in some unknown way.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
See what I mean? Enthralling and frustrating in equal measure since it's conveniently missing from Halt's tape. But SOMETHING about the detail provided and how it's provided is the best testimony from an RFI character (who was by Halt's side the whole time) that expands this beyond simply 'lights in the sky' and mis-identified beacons. Bustinza has no reason to BS, and has never received flak from anybody as far as I can recall.

I do see what you mean, but then consider that Bustinza recalled everyone laughing at Warren because he fell in the mud. If that detail is not "true" because Warren wasn't there, what makes any other detail that he has recalled anymore reliable? The Bustinza/Warren account however does match closest to the leaked account, except that Bustinza does not appear to have seen any beings, only a craft. I do think it odd, given the implication that Warren hijacked Bustinza'a experience, that the drawing that Warren produced looks nothing like the description that Bustinza provides but does look surprisingly like a man-made object mangled by re-entry.

originally posted by: mirageman
Don't forget that Bustinza is claiming these officers "...had some very sophisticated camera equipment, which wasn't unusual for the British". Why did he think British Police carried sophisticated camera equipment. In rural Suffolk? Did he even see British policemen?

Also, according to my notes, according to Pope, the Suffolk Police log states that they had a call from Bentwaters in reference to a "UFO reported last night. We have found a place where a craft of some sort seems to have landed." Would they not have made note in the same log that equipment had been handed to USAF? And knowing British budgetary standards, they definately would have had to explain to someone that said "sophisticated" and therefore very expensive sounding, equipment had to be replaced, surely?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Heh, makes me wonder what the US police in his home town carried - cardboard pinhole cameras? If no Brit officers were on duty that night, then we can reliably say he was mistaken and they were someone else in uniform - maybe Warren implanted the "bobby" notion when Bustinza spilled his story in the dorms. Hey - what about a milkman and postman with high-tech cameras? (A joke in case anyone's wondering.)

Back in the 80s hi-tech cameras were massive things too, especially the video side of things. Your joke aside, it did make me think of the LaPlume account of the General (or whoever it was) turning up with his wife and child and their fancy new camera. That sense of trippiness that I got from the way he described it. Extraordinary things being treated as ordinary and routine suggests to me a general lack of a tethered reality amongst everyone involved, which in turn suggests to me a psychosis-like effect.

Or that could just be me.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Good post KT.😁

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Ta, Baa.

originally posted by: mirageman
And I noticed LMH remained quiet when Clarke mentioned the fake MoD letter from the 80s about alien contact - a forgery she was willing to wave around as Fact when she had Dastardly Dick Doty on as a guest last year. In fact, the best thing about this show was that LMH did keep her incessant trap shut for most of the running time,

I followed your link, and I am sorry if I have missed the conversation in full but what I was looking for was who originally brought this letter to LMH's attention for her to write about it 20 years ago - who gave it to her? Do we know that?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Also, according to my notes, according to Pope, the Suffolk Police log states that they had a call from Bentwaters in reference to a "UFO reported last night. We have found a place where a craft of some sort seems to have landed." Would they not have made note in the same log that equipment had been handed to USAF?

Yes of course a log would be made. But the police file also indicates that no police officers were there after the 26th Dec 1980 which is when they visited the alleged landing site on Boxing Day morning.


See : Full Suffolk Police File

Bustinza was there on the same night Halt was out there (27th/28th Dec 1980). So official records point to him being wrong. Also British Police would not simply hand camera equipment and even film over to American troops. Halt had no authority to confiscate them and potentially risked consequences under the Status of Forces Agreement. By interfering with the duties of HM Police Force.

So this is a right mess. Maybe the police officers weren't from Suffolk police? Maybe not police at all. But if not then who were they? Adrian seems mightily confused when he told the story to Larry Fawcett. In fact Larry does have to "force it" out of him with some very leading questions.

I think we have to ask if Adrian's testimony was reliable in that interview? I've always felt he was happy to let Warren run with his own story to get it out there. But Warren's early babblings were an amalgamation of almost every RFI rumour banded about during the 1980s.

Did Adrian just go along with it all to keep Warren off his back?

In relation to something being weaponized from the RFI, I wonder if something like the "Active Denial System" works into that somehow? It was being developed / tested at Kirtland AFB...!

An Introduction to what that is;

Active Denial System (ADS)

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military,[2] designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. [3] Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray[4] since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human subjects.

Raytheon is currently marketing a reduced-range version of this technology.[5] The ADS was deployed in 2010 with the United States military in the Afghanistan War, but was withdrawn without seeing combat.[6] On August 20, 2010, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department announced its intent to use this technology on prisoners in the Pitchess Detention Center in Los Angeles, stating its intent to use it in "operational evaluation" in situations such as breaking up prisoner fights.[7] As of 2014, the ADS was only a vehicle-mounted weapon, though U.S. Marines and police were both working on portable versions.[8]

ADS was developed under the sponsorship of the DoD Non-Lethal Weapons Program with the Air Force Research Laboratory as the lead agency.[9][10] There are reports that Russia[11] and China are developing their own versions of the Active Denial System.[12]

Source

Example of it being tested / deployed;


We all know that John Alexander loves his Non-Lethal Weapons, he had this to say about it back in 2014;

Some believe it is concern about public outrage, rather the technology itself, which has stopped the military, and the police, from using these new weapons. “I blame journalists,” says John Alexander, a retired Army colonel who once headed a nonlethal weapons program at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. “When this thing first came out, they called it the ‘pain ray,’ and ‘human cookery,’ that is just totally not true.”

a reply to: pigsy2400

I think we can knock AD on the head. It was already being developed before RFI I believe.

John has already dropped some fairly heavy hints about where this was being developed. I'd say Lima Army Tank Plant, with designs from Bae.

John has also spoken about Tanks with cloaking, but it effects their navigation.

I've no idea if the two comments are linked though?

Personally, I'd go for some sort of infrared night vision.

a reply to: ctj83

Fair enough, thinking out loud more than anything. I just found it interesting as it related to "perimeter security" and was being tested at Kirtland and we all know the connections there etc.

John did state that it was related to something from BAE and this ADS was developed by Raytheon, worth a go

a reply to: pigsy2400

Isn't it odd that he's never made the document public? Is there some legal issue I'm missing? He got it via FOI so why can't it be made public? Why has no one else managed to get this document?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I think you will find that you've quoted me. But I didn't write that.

Original Post

Anyway the Hoax memo is discussed in DEFE 24-1948-1 and confirmed as being a hoax back in 1984.

There is a file on it here where the MoD confirm it so.

I have no idea who gave it to Linda Moulton Howe and why she used it in her book. Although if you haven't realised by now she is hardly a reliable source of information. She happily promotes known hoaxes as real even long after they are debunked.

If you want an example where there is no doubt she is promoting crap here she is with "Herr Groath" on Ancient Aliens promoting the MJ-12 document know as the SOM 1-01 Special Operations Manual.



You will note that it is dated April 1954

On page 13 of the pdf linked above (numbered as 10 in the manual) it states crashed ET craft should be sent to “Area 51 S-4” in Nevada. But it was an undeveloped portion of Nellis Air Force Base and was not given the name “Area 51” in 1954. In fact it was called the "Ranch" then and wasn't even scouted for use until 1955.

On page 10 of the pdf (numbered 10 inside) it brazenly states possible cover stories for recovery of UFOs. One being "downed satellites". Written in 1954 when there were no satellites in orbit other than the moon. How could you use that as a cover story in 1954?



So going back to your original question. Does it matter who gave it to her?

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: pigsy2400

Isn't it odd that he's never made the document public? Is there some legal issue I'm missing? He got it via FOI so why can't it be made public? Why has no one else managed to get this document?

Who wants to give it a go?
www.gov.uk...

Might be interesting to see what comes back?

a reply to: mirageman


LMH please

I'm at the point I can hardly read anymore from UFOlogy hall of famers. A bunch of hacks, con artists, BS-itters.

A toxic cesspool.
Any serious discussions on The Sham would leave out con artists like warren, LMH, et al.

They are all versions of Billy Meier, looking for the next con to be part of.

Z

a reply to: mirageman

Already on it Mr Mirage...

a reply to: pigsy2400

You might want to read John Burroughs page about it all😂.

originally posted by: mirageman
Bustinza was there on the same night Halt was out there (27th/28th Dec 1980). So official records point to him being wrong. Also British Police would not simply hand camera equipment and even film over to American troops. Halt had no authority to confiscate them and potentially risked consequences under the Status of Forces Agreement. By interfering with the duties of HM Police Force.

Which would further constitute an incident and would therefore require an incident report, as well as needing to be entered into the log alongside that incident's number. So a paper trail would exist even if all that happened was that the police officers were asked to cease filming and photographing because to do so could be construed as obstruction of their duty. Etc, etc. I'm not particularly making a point, merely underlining and recognising false information.

originally posted by: mirageman
So this is a right mess. Maybe the police officers weren't from Suffolk police? Maybe not police at all. But if not then who were they? Adrian seems mightily confused when he told the story to Larry Fawcett. In fact Larry does have to "force it" out of him with some very leading questions.

I believe that according to some of the airmen involved the camera equipment was confiscated from base personnel, one account I think at least states that it was the staff of the base's own publication that were asked to cease and desist filming/photographing. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Bustinza seems all that confused but I he does appear to be somewhat suggestible.

originally posted by: mirageman
I think we have to ask if Adrian's testimony was reliable in that interview? I've always felt he was happy to let Warren run with his own story to get it out there. But Warren's early babblings were an amalgamation of almost every RFI rumour banded about during the 1980s.

Did Adrian just go along with it all to keep Warren off his back?

What makes you think Warren was on his back? I don't think Bustinza is any more reliable than any of the other witnesses, but then I don't find reliability a factor in much of the evidence presented by any of the witnesses involved. Inconsistent and mutable seem to be the pervading themes from where I am sitting, hence why it is notable that Bustinza/Warren's account is consistent with the three original leaks IMO.

originally posted by: mirageman
I think you will find that you've quoted me. But I didn't write that.

Sorry for the confusion, I don't think it was particularly important to my questions who said it.

originally posted by: mirageman
So going back to your original question. Does it matter who gave it to her?

I don't know.

I'll take it the answer is no.