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

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Understood. Check your PM.

A great philosopher once wrote
Naughty, naughty, very naughty
Ha ha ha ha ha.....



Everyone has thier "triggers" mine is 90's dance music but that's just me...

It's all quite a sad saga really....every day goes by and all the extra BS gets us no closer to "what is it"...

Worked shoot double cross? It's like Montreal all very again...

OK so let's just have it out shall we....

The reason I posted the "2006" article John Burroughs is because it is apparent some people aren't upto speed with things and yes even things that were known 13 years ago. Dr David Clarkes work is second to none and his no BS approach is something that so sorely lacking in the wider field of Ufology.

How the identity of the Condign report was not known to most people beggers belief especially people like Ronnie who is also a class act, so I don't believe that you didn't know. The authors identity is not as some people believe protected by the OSA, it's protected by the DPA of 1998. The only organisation that needs to adhere to the DPA is any organisation that holds the information of the individual that identifies them as the author.

For anyone who works it out through common sense and the tiniest of digging is fair game, unless they have been in employment or are a representative of said organisation.

This is all BS.....and indicative of the main issue of the Rendlesham Forest Incident...

Whatever it was in the sky, on the ground, ionising or non ionising is alot simpler than all the shenanigans that have come from the mouths of all those directly involved since. All those involved have made it all considerably worse...

If you make statements like "get your facts right and you must tell the people" then state you hold documents about the case or related to that you refuse to release, then that makes you a hypocrite for making those same accusations agaisnt people like Pope for doing the same thing. What's the difference?

I don't hide behind a ATS ID and we have spoken directly John and you know who I am and I have no issue in stating it publicly either because frankly I don't care who knows but I will call BS when I smell it.

For anyone just tuning in, welcome to Rendlesham.

Good googly moogly...what have I missed, what have I missed? Can someone please pm me and un-confuse my titillation? I mean I'll still be titillated, I'm sure, just less confused.

Sounds like this thread actually has made some progress in all this?

Meanwhile...trying to find a copy of that book. And, am I to understand that we wee-folk actually do know the identity of the Condign author? Because that would answer some burning questions beyond the forest and through the trees.

a reply to: The GUT

You are late to the party then.

a reply to: pigsy2400

but I will call BS when I smell it. 

Get a shovel Pigs the BS is piled high!

a reply to: Baablacksheep

Well I think it's time to stop arguing with people via proxy (I'll include myself in that) as it's a fruitless endeavour and doesn't add anything to anything.

I'm much more interested now in what actually happened in the forest over a couple of nights than arguing semantics with the people that were involved.

Lets focus on getting documented evidence, getting our facts right and sharing that information and doing it in the right way. Hell if we have to wait or make multiple FOIAs in regards to other people's FOIAs to get clues on what specific information to ask for then so be it. It's been 38 years, pretty sure a few more ain't gonna hurt and all we got is time...

This other stuff is pointless....

a reply to: pigsy2400

This other stuff is pointless.... 

Agreed.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Yes, that's the version I listened to. Perhaps he mentions the cameras at two different points of that lonnnng interview; I could be mistaken but I got the impression it occurred post-trek, but I'll take your word for it. Most of all, I remember Bustinza staring at the big "M" logo on a particular camera. Were they the property of Brit cops? Warren in 1994 stated that the two "bobbies"' lives had hit skid row since 1980 due to ridicule, alcoholism etc. As MM mentioned, Bruni contacted the only possible Brit cops who could have been on duty on Night 3 - one firmly told her that he knew what he saw and didn't want to be contacted again. All very dramatic and a dream retort for Ufologists!

If they were the property of the UK police then there will be a paper trail, at the least the Police would have required a chit to prove they had been taken by who they claimed had taken the cameras.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
It depends. I would say Bustinza's original 1984 account to Fawcett was 'contaminated' by the latter feeding him Larry's story throughout, in itself mildly coercive if Bustinza did feel a sense of loyalty to Warren for whistleblowing. And it is curious how the 2015 interview of the actual Halt trek is hardly spectacular, missing any grand 'landing/alien beings' imagery until Warren arrives to sex-up the interview.

I do think that it is interesting that all talk of craft has been dropped from Bustinza’s account over time, but at the same time, if you listen to him, he makes comments such as “I don’t want to say it was a craft.......”, so perhaps he has come to more rational or reasonable conclusions about what he may or may not have “seen” on those two nights in the intervening years.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
The "Bullets are cheap" threat sounded palpably true, though. And his experience with Burroughs remains pretty spectacular, especially if he was the other successful compensatee.

Yes, I could have done without all the chat about fungal growths, but with the introduction of Sgt Smith’s account, there is obviously a concern to those involved, given comments from their doctors, that they suffered exposure to radiation and that the lights that they were chasing in the woods had something to do with that exposure.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Warren, I suspect he's going through a deliberate QUIET phase in his life despite the incoming "Capel Green' documentary, maybe reflecting on his controversial obnoxious behaviour in recent years that did nothing but harm his own case and the RFI as a whole. The only way his RFI story could make any sense is if there was a Fourth night, but that's an idea that's dead in the water, although Halt's inept dating of his memo allowed such speculation to flourish for many years until all the dates were finally verified.

I’m not entirely convinced that Halts mistake wasn’t deliberate. I’m reserving judgement on that for the time being. It would be perfectly understandable in my opinion to surmise that Warren may have some mental health issues. Trauma affects people differently.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
PS: Ironically, I think Halt's faulty memo date of "27th Dec" is what catches Penniston with his pants down (if you pardon the imagery!) since the notebook boasts the SAME wrong date, ie implying it was likely written after the memo's release in 1983 rather than the early hours of the 26th Dec 1980. Quite aside from the fact that Burroughs never saw him whip it out that night (the notebook, I mean).

Again, I’m not entirely sure if these were deliberate mistakes. It could be that Halt and Penniston were dancing for the same piper. We do know that the date was wrong which draws both individual’s accounts into question, in my opinion. Which is not to say that they should be completely dismissed, just treated with necessary caution.
I really enjoyed the interview though, it was most informative and I didn’t feel Warren was intrusive at all, a little awkward perhaps but I got a lot out of it, thanks.

originally posted by: pigsy2400
OK so let's just have it out shall we....

The reason I posted the "2006" article John Burroughs is because it is apparent some people aren't upto speed with things and yes even things that were known 13 years ago. Dr David Clarkes work is second to none and his no BS approach is something that so sorely lacking in the wider field of Ufology.

How the identity of the Condign report was not known to most people beggers belief especially people like Ronnie who is also a class act, so I don't believe that you didn't know. The authors identity is not as some people believe protected by the OSA, it's protected by the DPA of 1998. The only organisation that needs to adhere to the DPA is any organisation that holds the information of the individual that identifies them as the author.

It is indeed a good article and overview, a key take-away for me being...

The very quality of data used as the basis of the Condign study is therefore questionable. If a skilled researcher had been employed to follow up samples of reports from the archive, or even to gain a perspective on their reliability, thismight have improved its credibility as a source. However, in a statistical analysis involving thousands of reports, without such qualitative sampling, false representations will emerge and these logically will lead to false conclusions. The value of any statistical conclusion or scientific examination rests initially upon how carefully the data were acquired, their quality, and who is doing the research. To be fair to the author, he does at least mention the limitations of statistical analysis in Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 3. Based on the inadequacies of the raw data used in the Condign study, poor data in means poor data out, hence equally poor science.

...and I think, given his fictional outpourings and work experience, I think we can add preconditioned bias, amongst other possibilities into the mix, and into how much weight Condign's conclusions should be given.


Well stropped there Pigsy

a reply to: pigsy2400

I wonder if Jack Sarfatti has an opinion on Condign? It would be fascinating to see!

Likewise for “Ellie Arroway” or Coppola?

John makes a very good point about FOI, he can’t share them if he’s not got copyright permission I guess. Which means another FOI needs to be done to get it. It’s going to involve Bae, Lima Tank Factory.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that John et al get their answers. Having said that, he’s kept the Condign authors name a secret for some time and then just outed him today?

Hopefully, therefore, he’s managed to identify the Anti gravity scientist who apparently lived on the edge of the base. “Dr Dan Marckus”.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

He almost certainly held the same theory as TTSA etc as to the ultimate origin of the phenomena. Parts of the world are being gamed.

Some people assume that because AATIP was stalled by people who objected on religious grounds, that they share a very different view of the phenomena than the group they were trying to close. Perhaps the difference isn’t in what they think causes the phenomena but rather if it’s a good idea for us to try and “tackle it”?

a reply to: ctj83

Why dont you ask Dr Jack Ct, he is on Facebook.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
Again, I’m not entirely sure if these were deliberate mistakes. It could be that Halt and Penniston were dancing for the same piper. We do know that the date was wrong which draws both individual’s accounts into question, in my opinion. Which is not to say that they should be completely dismissed, just treated with necessary caution.

Halt clearly had deeper discussions with Penniston between 26th Dec and writing the memo - hence the "triangular" description of the 'craft'. Halt may have deliberately chosen "27th Dec" as a suitable middle date considering the memo merged all three nights into one, which (combined with the long delay in writing it) perhaps indicates he wasn't taking the incident THAT seriously. The MoD had to be notified in writing eventually due to USAF activity on civilian soil - dotting the 'i's, crossing the 't's etc.

Gordon Williams, despite his dismissive stance in interviews, obviously felt 'jealous' about Halt's experience - why else would he insist Halt contact him immediately if another UFO sighting occurred? Hence La Plume's January sighting (after the memo had been sent) and the immediate arrival of Halt's Scooby Doo sports car packed with Williams' family, as well as other senior personnel arriving, chomping at the bit. To no avail... alas.

The main aspect now of the RFI that stops me throwing in the towel for good is that the appearance of an aircraft crash as seen from the gate on Night One is an unprecedented sight both before and since. Even Ian Ridpath cannot explain that conundrum, his beloved lighthouse not visible from the gate, while Sirius or Venus don't have a habit of embedding themselves in forests.

The RFI never goes away, dammit! In our minds it goes around and around and around...

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

The main aspect now of the RFI that stops me throwing in the towel for good is that the appearance of an aircraft crash as seen from the gate on Night One is an unprecedented sight both before and since. Even Ian Ridpath cannot explain that conundrum, his beloved lighthouse not visible from the gate, while Sirius or Venus don't have a habit of embedding themselves in forests.

You sure about that?

Yes you can see the light house from that area. Maybe not deep in the forest but at the East gate on a clear night you can see it blinking off in the back ground, sure.

LaPlume - Jan 2014

originally posted by: mirageman

Ridpath himself established that the lighthouse was visible once the airmen were deep in the forest, ie where JB, JP, Halt & Co were stomping around. Of course, Ridpath conveniently ignores the initial light activity that resembled a potential airplane crash, focusing only on the descending fireball to prove nothing 'landed' rather than explaining the subsequent menagerie of coloured lights seen from the gate that started all this mess in the first place.

[It's also irritating how Ridpath merrily quotes LATER testimony that supports his theories (cue Chris "It's all BS!" Arnold) rather than people like Nevels, Bustinza, Ball etc. Sneaky little sod, isn't he? You've caught him out before, MM, and of course he didn't reply. This is what marks him out from more open-minded sceptics such as his esteemed pal Dr David Clarke.]

In any case, if LaPlume is correct, why on earth would a small blinking light from that distance cause enough concern for multiple airmen so as to resemble an aircraft crash in the forest? Doesn't gel, does it?

Around and around and around we go...

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Sure, there's some oddities that can make it hard to let go of. Like Roswell. Remember? But you joined the ranks of the "moving along" once you started truly digging in.

Roswell, Rendlesham aka The British Roswell...let the "R"s go Mon! You're not Scottish are you? Now there's some cats that need their R's.

I think one thing that--back in tha' day--made me hold onto the "R's longer than I should of was the "fear" of letting the wonderful mystery go. I personally found, however, that once you shed the fluff and distraction a deeper mystery calls.

Not that there's not a great mystery of worth and worth solving, still, in the Brit "R." I think there is. It might even have some clues about the greater mystery.

As for Condign...I've read and heard the criticisms. Some of the criticism certainly has merit or pause for reflection. I personally believe there's more to Condign than Clarke or Koi seem to think. For me it's a "keys that might unlock doors holding keys that unlock bigger doors" sort of thing.

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Sure, there's some oddities that can make it hard to let go of. Like Roswell. Remember? But you joined the ranks of the "moving along" once you started truly digging in.

Roswell, Rendlesham aka The British Roswell...let the "R"s go Mon! You're not Scottish are you? Now there's some cats that need their R's.

Hi, GUT - always a pleasure. No, not Scottish, but a 100% Spanish-blooded Yorkshireman now living down south in snobby Surrey. There's no hope for me. However, there IS a twist - my Spanish heritage IS Celtic, the home province being in Galicia, the Spanish home of tartan and bagpipes, I kid ye not!


Yeah, Roswell... mannnn, I could hang my head in shame that I was ever caught with that bait. Although I can't recall any surviving oddities in that case that encourage me to ever look at it again. Of course, Roswell was dead in the water (or woodwormed sticks splattered over a field, if you prefer) for thirty years until Marcel's miraculous stance in the wake of 'Close Encounters', hooking and damaging poor 'ole Stanton in the process, but forging one helluva lucrative industry with too many investors to turn back now.

The British "R" never died, crawling ever forward ever since 1980, surviving ridicule, carving new symbols on its skin, growing new binary limbs, filling 1000s of hours of paranormal radio shows, 100s of docus, persuading Fishburne to kickstart an 8-hour mini-series, endless Halt Perspectives, Warren perspectives, perspective perspectives, yadda yadda.

I'm still just about clinging onto the Rendlesham bus, though... even if (warning: Brit reference incoming) a bit like Frank Spencer these days at 1.00 in...

a reply to: The GUT

Condign is an odd mix isn't it.

I'm not sure if you heard Dr Clark's podcast with John Burrows, but Clarke pushed the idea that Condign suggest there is a non sentient phenomena, in the woods that appears sentient because it responds to the human mind. For a rational skeptic I found that an odd place to go. I'm not interpreting what he said to any degree, he literally offered this a theory to oppose what John said about intelligent phenomena.

I don't get that from the Condign report, but Dr Clarke seems to....

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: The GUT

Condign is an odd mix isn't it.

I'm not sure if you heard Dr Clark's podcast with John Burrows, but Clarke pushed the idea that Condign suggest there is a non sentient phenomena, in the woods that appears sentient because it responds to the human mind. For a rational skeptic I found that an odd place to go. I'm not interpreting what he said to any degree, he literally offered this a theory to oppose what John said about intelligent phenomena.

I don't get that from the Condign report, but Dr Clarke seems to....

Yeah that was quite an interesting position by Clarke on the phenomena. I would use the old adage but with a twist;

"If there are no people in the woods does the phenomena still make a noise"

In many ways that theory would also link into some of Nolan's work too....there needs to be a sender & a receiver...

Sentient / Non-sentient is an interesting subject to ponder, particularly in relation to interactions with it and how you could suppose that would work.