It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Case for Rendlesham

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:17 AM
The hypnosis session of Penniston was video-taped.
(I believe this aired during the Sci-Fi special on the event, but I'd have to see it again to be sure).

Sodium Pentathol was the answer given by Penniston to the hypnotist, as I recall. Though, this may very well have been an assumption by Penniston, unless his interrogators told him that's what it was. Again, I'd have to see that video again to be sure, and I couldn't find an online example of it to link to.

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 03:26 PM
It was safe for Penniston to assume it was sodium penethol, as that is what is commonly known as "truth serum" and is the most commonly used agent in CIA/intelligence interrogations.

Ive had it injected into me before by the air force, but that was prior to surgery and not interrogation, as SP is widely used in medicine as an anesthetic before surgeries or other invasive type proceedures. I had it used on me when they had to rest my nose after I broke it in a bar fight

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 06:38 PM
I thought they used Sodium Anbethol (spelling) now instead? Still, this was back in the 80's.....

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 10:10 PM
It's too bad the photos taken have not been released. Most people
on this site would likely call them "fakes" though.

I used to work in a photo lab and we would typically make extra copies
of photos that were interesting. I wouldn't expect the lab tech's to
be associated with the cover-up so I wonder how the photos were "lost".

I bet there are some military photo lab tech's out there with some interesting
personal collections. There does not appear to be many leaked military
photos, however.

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:42 AM
It would be pretty easy to denounce such photos as fakes in the press, nowadays. That's why photographic and even video evidence isn't worth squat anymore. It's simply too easy to fake.

I think in this particular case, it's safe to assume that since the men were interrogated fairly soon after the incident, that the lid was put on the films and pics pretty asap, and I doubt the base photo guys ever even got to develop those rolls. As Hynek, Ruppelt, and other Bluebook staff would say, such evidence went "elsewhere"...

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:39 PM
Rendlesham is my favourite UFo case of all time: for me it is the definitive proof UFO's ,whatever they may be, exist.

I have a question though. How reliable is the Halt tape. Is it completely genuine; or could it be a fake?

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:57 PM
Halt and other men on the tape have confirmed it as the actual tape.

Interestingly, I've come across some other info (mostly later interviews with participants), that may be pretty interesting. I didn't mention Larry Warren too much, because frankly, the evidence is that he wasn't involved. Like Roswell though, false witnesses came forward, and one must "unweave" them from the more factual accounts.

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:50 PM
I'm glad its real. This cememnts it as my favourite UFO case now.

BTW, i have the full 17:12 sound file for it, u2u me if you feel the need for a listen, its pretty good

posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Interestingly, I've come across some other info (mostly later interviews with participants), that may be pretty interesting. I didn't mention Larry Warren too much, because frankly, the evidence is that he wasn't involved. Like Roswell though, false witnesses came forward, and one must "unweave" them from the more factual accounts.

Hello Gazrok,

I disagree about what you say. Can you detail me the evidences you have found for saying that Larry Warren is not credible ?

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:32 PM
I will (too late tonight, and most of those notes are on the work computer).
I should have an answer for you on Wednesday...when I go back to the office.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:18 AM
I can give you specifics if you like, but the basic jist of it is that according to the other witnesses, he wasn't part of it. (nor is he on the tape of the second event). Also, I recall seeing that he wasn't even on duty for the night in question. You'll also find that most UFOlogists don't accept his story at all, and he originally used an alias (Art something or other I believe), which is pretty suspect also, which never improves credibility. Warren's account goes into underground bases, alien contact, etc. which goes beyond the other witness testimony in the case. Larry's case just doesn't add up, and he's contradicted himself on numerous occassions, including once even stating that the alien part of the story was to mislead the media... All in all, a bad apple in the bunch.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:36 PM
Thanks for answering. Indeed Halt and Penniston said Larry Warren was not involved. Warren also changed his story. But the main problem i have is that i can't see the point why Larry Warren would have done this, if it was for disinforming.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but Larry, in his testimony, have confirmed what Penniston said, that they were taken underground, interrogated and given a shot. I don't find that his testimony has created confusion, as disinformation should do.

Here is an article i found while searching in Google, about a recent update by Larry Warren, at the Paraquest Conference in april 2005. I'd like to know what you think about it :

LARRY WARREN - Rendlesham Forest— An update
The final presentation of the day was by Larry Warren.
Larry was involved in the Rendlesham Forest event in 1980 and co-authored "Left at East Gate" with Peter Robins. confirmed they will be made generally available. Before commencing his presentation, Larry expressed his thanks to the organisers and the audience.
Larry’s lecture was based on a paper that had been presented to the Crash Retrieval Conference held in the USA on 13th November 2004.
After initially giving a brief review of the Rendlesham Forest case his lecture focussed on what had happened to him after the incident.
Larry was given a de-brief by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Note it was not done by officers from the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) as is widely reported.
Over the years since 1980 he has been the subject of considerable criticism in some quarters about his story because his account has been seen to change.
Colonel Halt (famous for the ’Halt Memorandum’) had stated that Larry was not involved in the incident at all. Halt has now acknowledged that he was wrong and fully accepts that Larry was involved on the third night of the sightings at the bases. Larry explained why this was. Perhaps understandably he said that he had been reluctant to disclose the true extent of his sightings because of their fantastic nature.
He then went on to quote from several letters he’d received from former servicemen who confirmed much of what he had been saying for years about the incident. Larry stated that he was forced to undergo medical treatments against his wishes that were at the hands of the military, some of whom had British accents!
He went on to discuss his belief that vast underground installations existed beneath the Bentwaters and Woodbridge bases.
He cited one visit to thebases with Peter Robins, Matthew Williams when they intended to explore them, however their hopes were dashed when they found that metal covers had been welded shut thus preventing access into them. Larry had originally intended to show the full version (2 hour) of a programme made by the SCI-FI channel entitled "UFO Invasion at Rendlesham". When it was later shown on Sky only 45 minutes of it was broadcast. Sadly we were only able to see a few short extracts of the extra material as a result of some equipment failures.

You can found the original article here :

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:51 PM
I'd have to see where the Halt confirmation is coming from. And still, this would be Halt saying Larry was one of those on the base seeing something, not confirming Larry's claim of the landing spot, etc.

Larry's motives may simply be publicity, not disinfo... You didn't see Halt and Penniston, or Burroughs, etc. going around the UFO con circuit like you see Larry doing....

The fact is, Larry isn't involved in the two incidents with the most substantiation...(i.e. the sighting detailed in Halt's official USAF memo, or on the recording tape the next night). Yet, he tells of a similar story as Penniston, but with a different landing spot, and no other corraboration...while both Penniston and Burroughs (and the others involved) state he simply wasn't there....

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:43 PM
Wow, what an awesome account. I had never heard about that account before.

It really does make you wonder eh?
Thanks for taking the time to post that.

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:45 PM
You CAN read what ATS has to offer but I'd prefer the original docs.

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:05 PM
I recently saw a special on TV about Rendlesham, I think it was on the History Channel. Halt stared straight into the camera and flat out denied Warrens story. Also the narrator stated that in their search of Military and other records they found no confirmation of Warren even being in the country. I dont recall what the date was for this show but it didnt appear to be too old.
I've always thought this story had some sense of realism to it. And the lighthouse explanation- well its just laughable. Rendlesham and the McMinnville episodes are my favorites for supporting UFOs.

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:57 PM

I uploaded the FULL "Halt Tape" in MP3 format (3 Mo, duration 17mn51s) :

Rendlesham UFO Event - The HALT Tape

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:03 AM
Wikipedia have a very good (in that it is fair and balanced) article on this:

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:36 PM
thank you musclor for the upload.....

this is 1 of those cases that has stayed with me for years......very interesting and a favorite of my fathers

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:10 AM

[edit on 5-3-2006 by AzurWhyte]

[edit on 5-3-2006 by AzurWhyte]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in