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

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The 7 or 8 bit ASCII argument was always a bit stupid. 7 bit ASCII was encoded on 8 bit computers in the 1980s. Trust me, I was programming the things back then. Extended ASCII sets followed on afterwards. It is simply not an issue. If I were intending to fake an ASCII code binary message so that it appeared to come from 1980, I would not use extended ASCII code.

a reply to: Sutekh

A Dr Who Fan I take it...pyramids on Mars...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Baablacksheep

I thought this would be right up your alley?

Watch carefully at this point

youtu.be...

This guy was very well know in Ireland during the early 1980s. Especially for his taste in cars.....and err other things.

Now if you haven't worked it out yet then it will all come to you eventually.

Give it time...

😁

a reply to: Sutekh

I hope you realise the binary is a dark one here on ATS.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

It is about to get a whole lot darker.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

OK, well I had hoped for some independent confirmation but there you go.

The section of the binary code which encodes "666" is:

0011011 0011011 0011011

Luciano had to assume that bits had been omitted and he added these back in [in square brackets]

00110110 [0]0110110 [0]011011[0] = 666

This was presumptuous. There are a number of other solutions obtained by adding back 0 or 1 bits. Another is:

0011[0]011 0011[0]011 0011[0]011 = 333

Why does this matter? Because Jim Penniston predicted in 2010, before this section of the code had been translated, that the numbers would be 333.

So the number was intended to be 333 8100. Luciano added the space in his translation although it does not exist in the binary (which has no spaces). Why a space there? A form of parapraxis?

Luciano, the "translator" of the code, lives in Colorado Springs, area code 719.

Do a reverse lookup of (719) 333 8100 - it is a telephone number registered with the USAF Academy north of Colorado Springs.

333 numbers are all linked with the USAF Academy. 8100 is an extension within this.

ET Phone home. Indeed.

And there's more...

a reply to: Sutekh

Has luciano been aproached re all of this? The binary is not well received on here so not sure if "more" binary issues will be acceptable on ATS. I do know CTj83 had suggested in the past that perhaps another thread should be created about it all? I cant say either way as I actually know very little re Luciano except what is already out there. Seems like you have been digging into this area though.

a reply to: Sutekh

You are best taking all this to a thread specifically about the binary codes like this one.

Rendlesham Forest Incident - I know what the binary code meant .... Or create your own thread.

This thread has moved on a long time ago.

a reply to: mirageman

Sorry about that. I was not trying to sell the binary code again. It is almost certainly a fabrication. I am just bringing up new and pretty weighty information which adds to this being the case. There is a lot of it. Anyway, thanks for the link. I will take it over to the other thread as you suggest.

a reply to: Sutekh

Fraud is serious. I will make note should you decide to go to the other thread or create one of your own.

a reply to: Sutekh

No worries Sutekh, its not that discussion around different parts of the RFI isnt welcome.. there is just a time and a place for many of the different aspects within. As with many things such as this, it is a complex incident with even more complex stories and characters.

Don't let this put you off contributing in the other thread

a reply to: pigsy2400

Don't let this put you off contributing in the other thread

Agreed, he should not be put off at all.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
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.

Given all the time that Halt had to go over the statements and to double check details to then get the date wrong seems deliberate to me. It could be, given Penniston's initial concerns about the effect the incident may have had on his career that Halt chose to only refer to his own forays into the woods so as not to draw attention to the other men involved, keeping them out of it. Which would be a decent thing of him to do I think. If Squadron Leader Moreland is to be believed, Halt had no difficulty sitting down with him and talking about craft landing in the forest. Seems to me that Halt has a pair if I put it like that.

I was wondering about what Conrad said about OSI not being interesting in "Unexplained lights" and that at that time they were more interested in "serious lawbreakers....drug traffickers, security risk, and the like." Perhaps something was going on, operationally, that meant that OSI needed to shut down all the attention being paid to the woods. I find it hugely suspicious, if Bustinza is to be believed, that those "agents" interviewing him would fail to show even the slightest curiousity about what was going on in the woods. They just wanted him to cease talking about it. Nothing more. So, they either think what they are doing is more important and don't want attention drawn to it, or they know what the lights in the forest were and it is not Bustinza's business to know.

Or it was but a dream

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

Given all the time that Halt had to go over the statements and to double check details to then get the date wrong seems deliberate to me. It could be, given Penniston's initial concerns about the effect the incident may have had on his career that Halt chose to only refer to his own forays into the woods so as not to draw attention to the other men involved, keeping them out of it. Which would be a decent thing of him to do I think. If Squadron Leader Moreland is to be believed, Halt had no difficulty sitting down with him and talking about craft landing in the forest. Seems to me that Halt has a pair if I put it like that.

Oh, I think the '27th Dec' was a deliberate 'middle date' due to condensing all three nights into one. The memo's paragraph "2" does say "The next day..." leading to a description of the 'landing site' and radiation readings, following his summary of Night One. However, the memo does not read in a way that suggests his own trek (paragraph "3") was on a separate night. At least not to me.

What fascinates me as much as the identity of what was seen from the gate on Night One (still unexplained, and clearly not simply a distant lighthouse 'dot' from that distance) is how Penniston gave Halt perfect measurements of a "triangular" craft - a detail omitted from Penniston's allegedly re-written statement. If Penniston WAS shaken down, I'm surprised the MIC left the "mechanical" description intact and allowed Halt's memo to be sent as written - unless 'they' were unaware that Halt was given such detailed info. It's a head-scratcher, isn't it?

Perhaps something was going on, operationally, that meant that OSI needed to shut down all the attention being paid to the woods. I find it hugely suspicious, if Bustinza is to be believed, that those "agents" interviewing him would fail to show even the slightest curiousity about what was going on in the woods. They just wanted him to cease talking about it. Nothing more.

Well, that is a grand theory that would certainly explain the alleged "Bullets Are Cheap" threats and re-written statements. A USAF operation? Perhaps a recovery op of experimental equipment that 'fell' into the forest? Why did Bustinza say in one interview that the 'craft' remained in the field for two days? If so, what was it that he said lifted off and blew a gust at Halt's party? Both Bustinza and Burroughs recall personnel and helicopters in the forest later that week, as well as an incoming aircraft (a C-5, according to JB) that came to collect something. Were the MoD notified?

In their own words:

Bustinza's comments from 1984:

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - Yeah. When the plane flew in, I remember they called for security right off the bat. And I happened to be on duty, and I set the security.

LARRY FAWCETT - Was that the same day?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - No, because we had been working days then. It was in the swing, so it had to be about three or four days later. Because then we went on three-day break.

LARRY FAWCETT - Well, then, how long was that machine there then?

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - I really don’t know. I mean, as far as out in the field?

LARRY FAWCETT - Yeah.

ADRIAN BUSTINZA - When we came in contact with it. Two nights.

LARRY FAWCETT - Two nights it was there.

And John, on 28th Feb 2008 at the old Rendlesham forum (grammar/spelling corrected for ease of reading):

The C-5 did not land to bring anything in! Also, nothing was placed in the forest. What went on with the C-5 crew and what was going on in the forest had to do with them looking for something. I spent 26 years in the Security field and I can tell you this: if they put a missile out there, we would have known about it at the base. Also, I do agree with the UFO cover to hide something else that was going on, and it might have had something to do with Russia. I feel Halt might have been set up, but after it happened, not before.

Make of that what you will. Alternatively, scream into the wilderness of confusion!

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
What fascinates me as much as the identity of what was seen from the gate on Night One (still unexplained, and clearly not simply a distant lighthouse 'dot' from that distance) is how Penniston gave Halt perfect measurements of a "triangular" craft - a detail omitted from Penniston's allegedly re-written statement. If Penniston WAS shaken down, I'm surprised the MIC left the "mechanical" description intact and allowed Halt's memo to be sent as written - unless 'they' were unaware that Halt was given such detailed info. It's a head-scratcher, isn't it?

It certainly adds to the pile of inconsistencies.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Well, that is a grand theory that would certainly explain the alleged "Bullets Are Cheap" threats and re-written statements. A USAF operation? Perhaps a recovery op of experimental equipment that 'fell' into the forest? Why did Bustinza say in one interview that the 'craft' remained in the field for two days? If so, what was it that he said lifted off and blew a gust at Halt's party? Both Bustinza and Burroughs recall personnel and helicopters in the forest later that week, as well as an incoming aircraft (a C-5, according to JB) that came to collect something. Were the MoD notified?

It is hardly a grand theory, but if Conrad and others deny any knowledge that some of the airmen were "interrogated" while the airmen are sticking with the story that they were, then that opens the possibility that the interrogations were unauthorised, and indeed, we can infer from Bustinza's statements that the methods used were at least in part unorthodox. We could infer that this was to un-nerve the airmen, but to my mind the potential exists for the interrogations to have been bullying tactics and not officially sanctioned which is why they took place in the "camera shop" and not in the OSI building because those involved didn't want their colleagues to know because it wasn't authorised. From there is it only a hop, skip and a jump to suppose that some elements on the bases may have been protecting their own interests, illegal or otherwise.

There are a great deal of inconsistencies but that is kind of what's delightfully consistent about RFI

I do not see how the craft can have been in the woods for two days and the Suffolk Police not seen it despite attending the scene at least once and claiming in their log to have visited a possible landing site. The comment that Halt made to Conrad at the party that "it's back" also, to me, suggests that whatever it was went away and came back again.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

I do not see how the craft can have been in the woods for two days and the Suffolk Police not seen it despite attending the scene at least once and claiming in their log to have visited a possible landing site. The comment that Halt made to Conrad at the party that "it's back" also, to me, suggests that whatever it was went away and came back again.

As I interpret it (and my God, it's sometimes hard to decipher USAF ramblings), Bustinza's claim that the craft sat there for "two nights" refers to it being left in the forest clearing AFTER Halt's party returned to base on 28th (until the C-5 arrived?), rather than simply sitting there since 26th (when Suffolk police attended). However, it contradicts his own story of the craft lifting off and splitting into three when it reached the farmer's field (the latter part at least vaguely resembling Halt's memo).

Alternatively, he really did simply mean the UFO had been 'around' since 25th/26th, thus misunderstanding Fawcett's question. Nobody else has referred to the object being 'left' in that forest clearing, and Bustinza's account remains a bizarre anomaly, possibly the words of a severely re-wired mind if his alleged interrogation was as intense as he remembers.

(By the way, it was Bruce Englund who told Halt "It's back".)

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Who out of all the airmen claim they were interrogated?

A: Bustinza, Penniston and Warren

Of those three how would you rate their reliability as witnesses? In fact how reliable are any of the witnesses?

As for the Halt memo. Why was it left to the Deputy Base Commander to write to the MoD? Surely if his superior (Conrad) and the Wing Commander (Williams) were seriously concerned then either of those would have notified the MoD immediately?

But no. It was decided to take a leisurely two weeks until Halt would write his memo on Jan 13th 1981. Halt's excuse was that he was waiting for the RAF Liaison officer Don Moreland (who wrote the covering note to Halt's memo) to return from a holiday in Wales.

I've said this before but it appears to me that the command structure was somewhat dysfunctional at the Twin Bases. Conrad and Williams could have been unimpressed by Halt's story and decided that any communication to the MoD would be up to Halt to convey. If there was any genuine concern for a breach of security within NATO then action would have been taken a lot sooner.

originally posted by: mirageman
If there was any genuine concern for a breach of security within NATO then action would have been taken a lot sooner.

It should be noted that Halt and his superiors were all surprised that the MoD did not act on the memo. Halt admitted he didn't think it was that important when writing it, perhaps influenced by the suggestion that it was a Brit matter, so "Let THEM deal with it".

Which we didn't. Even when we saw the covering note that upgraded the memo's "Unexplained lights" to "Unidentified Flying Objects". Miserable, un-inquisitive sods, ain't we?


Despite the stories of airmen in tears, as well as Penniston and Burroughs being given an immediate six days' leave, I get the general impression that the three days were treated as a hugely entertaining Disney-esque series of unusual lights. Officers' wives were even known to have picnics in the forest after the event, waiting for the lights to re-appear; and Wing Commander Williams was keener than most to see them, having woo-wooed his own family.

'Serious consideration' seemed the last emotion on the bases' agendas. After all, this was JUST like that Special Edition of 'Close Encounters' at the local cinema that Christmas. Bring your own popcorn!

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
As I interpret it (and my God, it's sometimes hard to decipher USAF ramblings), Bustinza's claim that the craft sat there for "two nights" refers to it being left in the forest clearing AFTER Halt's party returned to base on 28th (until the C-5 arrived?), rather than simply sitting there since 26th (when Suffolk police attended). However, it contradicts his own story of the craft lifting off and splitting into three when it reached the farmer's field (the latter part at least vaguely resembling Halt's memo).

Ah, right. Not that that helps but it sort of delineates the reporting a little. So, visited and went away again 26th early hours, came back again after dark and stayed in field subsequent to that? That raises lots of questions, and doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense (but that's par for the course).

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Alternatively, he really did simply mean the UFO had been 'around' since 25th/26th, thus misunderstanding Fawcett's question. Nobody else has referred to the object being 'left' in that forest clearing, and Bustinza's account remains a bizarre anomaly, possibly the words of a severely re-wired mind if his alleged interrogation was as intense as he remembers.

He doesn't come across as all that "rewired" though does he? As you said, he's perfectly lucid, but by his own admission these are events that he has tried not to think about, and pretty much all of them were young when it happened. And a lot will have happened to them since. I don't think that Bustinza today would have put up with what seems like a pretty bull# interrogation from start to finish which is what kind of makes the incident have a ring of truth to it. He may be missing stuff out, did he know the guys that came to pick him up? Did they inform him of their authority to interview him? His youth combined with the circumstances may explain his passivity, perhaps this kind of thing was the norm on the bases, but even so, I am led to wonder whether those that interviewed him had any authority to do so and took advantage of those that were greenest. It ties in a little with what LaPlume has implied about there being a sinister or uncomfortable underlying atmosphere around the bases that just made him want to get out as quick as he could.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
(By the way, it was Bruce Englund who told Halt "It's back".)

It's splitting hairs but...according to Conrad's exchange with Dr Clarke on his website, the Security Police arrived at the party and informed Halt that "They're back" and Halt then told Conrad "It's back".

originally posted by: mirageman

Who out of all the airmen claim they were interrogated?

A: Bustinza, Penniston and Warren

Of those three how would you rate their reliability as witnesses? In fact how reliable are any of the witnesses?

Hehe...not playing that particular game, it's a web and we need to look at where stories cross rather than singling out individual accounts.

They're all unreliable simply due to our reliance on the resilience of their memories. Did Bustinza see active service in the Gulf Wars? If not, he could be the only one who has not been exposed to environmental factors that cause neurological problems (Warren's, if he has any, I am judging to be self-inflicted but doing so without judgement).

originally posted by: mirageman
As for the Halt memo. Why was it left to the Deputy Base Commander to write to the MoD? Surely if his superior (Conrad) and the Wing Commander (Williams) were seriously concerned then either of those would have notified the MoD immediately?

But no. It was decided to take a leisurely two weeks until Halt would write his memo on Jan 13th 1981. Halt's excuse was that he was waiting for the RAF Liaison officer Don Moreland (who wrote the covering note to Halt's memo) to return from a holiday in Wales.

Perhaps because he really didn't want to. Or because he was waiting for a sufficient distance in time so as not to draw attention to what was still going on at the bases, ie, time was needed to get rid of the evidence of it being anything other than an alien landing in case the MoD came and checked it out. At the least we can probably infer that Halt waited because he only wanted to deal with Moreland, for whatever reason. Moreland referred to him as "Chuck" which would imply a certain familiarity.

originally posted by: mirageman
I've said this before but it appears to me that the command structure was somewhat dysfunctional at the Twin Bases. Conrad and Williams could have been unimpressed by Halt's story and decided that any communication to the MoD would be up to Halt to convey. If there was any genuine concern for a breach of security within NATO then action would have been taken a lot sooner.

I would guess that as postings go, for the command at least, it was a soft posting and I agree that there does not appear to have been any concern that either of the bases had had a breach of security. I remember reading somewhere, but without checking my notes, that either Dot Street or Brenda Butler was told by the butcher that Col WIlliams had told him about the craft in the forest. Not sure if that was confirmed ever by the butcher but it further impounds the impression that a number of people were actively promoting the rumour that something had landed in the forest, rather than a story about a bunch of airmen chasing lights.

Warren in the 2015 Bustinza interview asks Burroughs and Bustinza about the base "rumour mill", they all to some degree agree there wasn't one that they were aware of. Warren emphasises that he wanted to quash that idea once and for all. According to how the story broke, up to and including Brenda Butler's "impressive information network" we have got gossip going on left right and centre about what went down in the woods, but according to the airmen they're not talking to each other or anyone else about it. But Williams is, as is Ingalls/Roberts and some unknown sub claiming to work at a civilian radar station. Someone wanted people to believe that a craft full of aliens had come down in the forest, I am guessing because they thought people would find it ridiculous and laugh at them, thereby rendering whatever they did have to say previously soiled. And here we are...