Col Charles Halt says “extra-terrestrials” caused the close encounter at Rendlesham Forest air

Some of the comments Lindell makes are the worst sort of arrogant arrant twaddle you see dished up by so called 8rational skeptics*. Steal an idea from someone far more qualified to speak on it than you, Keel, Vallee and then present it as if you thought of it and have done more than a cursory flit through the 't'interweb as research..

The *Giant Gorilla* was folklore, the sue of bark as a pain killer was *folklore*, ancient Troy was merely *folklore*. I assume by Lindell's remarks they were both unworthy of serious scientific investigation ?

If the person had actually bothered to stop acting like a superior knohead of the first order and actually do some serious research they might well think differently.

I belong , pretty much, in the folklore camp, but that doesn't mean i deny that there is something actually physical worthy of investigation.

The Rendlesham incident, even when you strip away most of the ensuing circus has, at its' core, something that, still today, stands up as a credible experience.

There was an independent corroborative witness, who the nay sayers do their best to completely ignore, you can make your own mind up as to why, who. Made it plain what he saw tallied with what was later reported.

What it was, we simply do not know and maybe never will. It might have been some kind of *black ops psi test* by NATO, maybe NATO thought it was Warsaw pact *Psi op*. Whatever it was, the armed forces and the MOD seemed to be proven as lairs about how *significant* they saw it as.

Lets take a look at the folklore of the Rendlesham region..


Historically it has been linked with the famous *Black Shuck/Black Dogs* as well as, more recently, this story cropping up.

manbeastuk.blogspot.com...

So, even given Britain's wealth of folklore Rendlesham does have a history that is notable and, what is more contemporary, when it comes to *strange happenings*

During WW2 the coastline near to Rendlesham was used for *secret testing*. Probably, many of *Hobart's funnies* were tested out here, but there is evidence to suggest chemical weapons were also tested and that one of the tests to set the *sea of fire* using oil as a guard against invasion was done in the area. In short a pretty highly militarised zone, with a long history of paranormal happenings circa 1939- 1990...

Viewed in that context, one can see why there might not be that great a surprise that, something strange happened on and around the airbases there.

I have posted elsewhere on this site how. In the winter of 1980 , aside from Rendlesham, I have had two landings of *strange craft* reported to me personally, one anonymously, the other openly in England. One , the openly reported sighting with multiple witnesses, the anonymous one with a single witness. The anonymous one was reported to me a month BEFORE
the Rendlesham incident..

You can sit in an office in some foreign country and pontificate about what the hell you like. However, when you can;t be bothered to do even the most rudimentary research to check the case you are spouting off about, it makes you as credible as the worst of the *believers*..

[edit on 14-7-2009 by FireMoon]

Originally posted by JennyJen
I've lived near Rendlesham my whole life and whilst I haven't seen anything there, a couple of my friends that live in the old Air Force accommodation there have seen a few things. You can go on a 'UFO Walk' around the forest to see the precise locations of where it all happened. I've always found the 'logical' explanations for the event ridiculous, including a light from a (not really) nearby location that was somehow mistaken as a UFO. I think all those that are going to believe the Alien theory, already do so, so this latest declaration won't make much of a different. The disbelievers are always going to find a reason to dispute it- even when there's an alien staring them in the face they'll still poke it and say its a great costume.

Go on a UFO walk to see where it all happened! The last programme I watched about this had Halt, Penniston and Thurkettle (woodsman) wandering around the woods unable to agree where it all took place! The statements concerning the whereabouts of this object have changed, the size of the object has changed and it's general direction has changed. . . The only thing we have to go on is the Halt tape which, when played alongside film of the Orford Ness lighthouse shows that at least for a little while Halt and his men are watching the lighthouse. The, "it's on-it's off again, part of the tape lines up perfectly with the revolving beam from the lighthouse.
Also, why do all the key principle witnesses disagree with one another? Halt wont come out and directly say it but he refuses to accept that Larry Warren was there. Burroughs testimony is often called into question and then we have the problems of the dates that this actually happened? Was it two nights as Halt says or was it three as Warren claims. . .
For me there's far too many holes in this case for it to be taken seriously.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Quote from tape..."It's directly overhead, one can see an opening in the tress and some freshly broken pine branches on the ground"......

Just how does that tally with the lighthouse explanation... care to explain how a lighthouse can be "Directly overhead"?

"It's a strange small RED light",.. directly from the tape... and now the lighthouse has a filter over the white light i suppose? if you are going to pick holes at least get it right and stop jumping on the bandwagon driven by people who haven't a clue what they are actually talking about...

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

Quote from tape..."It's directly overhead, one can see an opening in the tress and some freshly broken pine branches on the ground"......

Just how does that tally with the lighthouse explanation... care to explain how a lighthouse can be "Directly overhead"?

"It's a strange small RED light",.. directly from the tape... and now the lighthouse has a filter over the white light i suppose? if you are going to pick holes at least get it right and stop jumping on the bandwagon driven by people who haven't a clue what they are actually talking about...

Care to explain why you never read properly what I wrote? I said the On/off segment of the tape corresponds perfectly with the revolving light of the light house.
The pine branches were caused by a storm-Vince Thurkettle.
Jumping on bandwagons! The words, Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind. . .

The red light is from the *there is it again* section of tape.... Try actually listening to the tape itself

Go on a UFO walk to see where it all happened! The last programme I watched about this had Halt, Penniston and Thurkettle (woodsman) wandering around the woods unable to agree where it all took place! The statements concerning the whereabouts of this object have changed, the size of the object has changed and it's general direction has changed. . .

Before dismissing the entire case, you must realise that there were two, possibly three separate incidents, involving different people and reportedly, a different craft.

Jim Penniston, who was involved on the first night of the incident (25/26 Dec.) described a small pyramid shaped object with red and blue lights.

Halt, who was involved on the second night (27/28 Dec.), was alerted to the fact: "The UFO's back." He described a red pulsating object, which appeared to be shedding "molten metal". Later on, the same object apparently separated into three separate objects, took off and proceeded to send a beam of light down to the ground.

Halt wont come out and directly say it but he refuses to accept that Larry Warren was there.

So? Halt maintains that Larry Warren was "messed with". There is more to the Rendlesham case than Warren's version of events.

Burroughs testimony is often called into question

By who? Having discussed the case with John and listened to numerous interviews with him, it has become clear that John's testimony is absolutely solid. As far as I am aware, there is no reason to doubt John Burroughs' version of events.

The pine branches were caused by a storm-Vince Thurkettle.

Vince has only given a few interviews and I cannot recall him ever mentioning a storm. The 'Great Storm' occurred in 1987.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by JH80]

Plus, what serendipity for Vince to have been standing under that specific tree during a storm when the branches were broken.. Truly an amazing coincidence that is..

reply to post by JH80


For me, Jim Penniston is the only witness that I feel is compelling. When he speaks you get that sense of confusion which is still there to this day. The others, I'm not convinced. I've spoken to Warren many times and you get the feeling from him that he just wishes the whole thing would just go away. But why does this have to be alien in origin? Could this not be a top secret prototype aircraft that couldn't make it back to its original airbase so tried to come down on the nearest American base? Apparently something was taken away from the base the next day in a large plane!

I think this is a real incident but the powers that be have tainted the evidence so that it becomes virtually impossible to work out fact from fantasy.
A better line of enquiry would be if someone tried to understand what the insignia, the symbols which Penniston copied from the side of the object, were?

To be honest, I'm more inclined to believe it as its a bloody scary thought if our military are unable to distinguish a lighthouse from a UFO. As far as I am aware, the walk itself has been confirmed to be the right one after it was researched and I can say that given the location provided, there is no way it could have been the lighthouse that they saw. This weekend I'll spend the night exploring the whole woods incase there are other area's where this mistake could have been made. Again, I recommend anyone to come here and do the same. Researching other peoples findings and sharing them as your own, doesn't quite cut it and scream that its a reliable theory to me. In the same way, I wouldn't make fast judgements on Roswell or any other area, if I haven't had the opportunity to research it throughly myself, particularly if the piviotal argument is dependant on a lighthouse which can still be witnessed today.

if something was removed from the Airbase the day after Pennistone's experience it came back the day after?

Might it not be just as likely that, the military were sufficiently worried by the night's activities to move some more *sensitive* equipment away, just in case?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

 

Quote from tape..."It's directly overhead, one can see an opening in the tress and some freshly broken pine branches on the ground"......

Just how does that tally with the lighthouse explanation... care to explain how a lighthouse can be "Directly overhead"?

"It's a strange small RED light",.. directly from the tape... and now the lighthouse has a filter over the white light i suppose? if you are going to pick holes at least get it right and stop jumping on the bandwagon driven by people who haven't a clue what they are actually talking about...

Care to explain why you never read properly what I wrote? I said the On/off segment of the tape corresponds perfectly with the revolving light of the light house.
The pine branches were caused by a storm-Vince Thurkettle.
Jumping on bandwagons!

The words, Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind. . .

Halt has explained very clearly that the tape was only 20 minutes long, so he was shutting the machine off between entries. The playback is not in real time.

reply to post by tarifa37


in the UK ..so called ufo researchers such as Jenny Randles and two other
wannabees had claimed that the UFO incident was attributed to a local
lighthouse. Well....that light house would have been there every day and night for the duration of the soldiers duty. Great work from those dusty old
ufo researchers? What do they sell now? Archives as dusty as their vision.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


I saw something on TV that said the lighthouse has a metal cover on the side facing land and always has. What do you think about that?

Just so you know, I'm on your side. I think it can probably be explained somehow.

Originally posted by deprogrammer
reply to post by tarifa37

 

in the UK ..so called ufo researchers such as Jenny Randles and two other
wannabees had claimed that the UFO incident was attributed to a local
lighthouse. Well....that light house would have been there every day and night for the duration of the soldiers duty. Great work from those dusty old
ufo researchers? What do they sell now? Archives as dusty as their vision.

I hear what you're saying but you have to realise that the men stationed at Bentwaters never ever ventured into the forest so they wouldn't know what was there or what was visible from there. You may remember the first debunkers tried to say that the American airmen and security officers had been having drug parties in the woods. . . American security is such that they know the whereabouts of all their personel at all times so the chance they could have sneaked off base was ridiculous.

Besides Jenny Randles the other two researchers were Dot Street and Brenda Butler, both are very pro alien and wont listen to any other explanation than the alien hypothesis.
I don't believe anyone is openly lieing about this case but I do strongly believe that the damage to the trees, the radiation, the triangular holes and the testimony of Warren is smoke to hide the real truth about what happened that night.

Originally posted by FireMoon
if something was removed from the Airbase the day after Pennistone's experience it came back the day after?

Might it not be just as likely that, the military were sufficiently worried by the night's activities to move some more *sensitive* equipment away, just in case?

I haven't heard that one before! I know a huge transport plane took something away which was hidden beneath a canvas sheet but I hadn't heard that it was brought back. . . Please tell me more?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


If what Pennistone saw was removed the next day, then logically it follows that , either the Halt tale is complete and utter moonshine/hoax or another, or the same object object, appeared the next night?

As for the *drugs party* story. if memory serves me right that was one spectacular own goal on behalf of the USAF, who put that story out themselves to try and diffuse the interest in the sighting only to have it blow up in their own face when people like Lord Hill-Norton stated that.

The other explanation is that it didn’t. In that case, one is bound to assume that Colonel Halt and all his men were hallucinating. My position is perfectly clear — either of those explanations is of the utmost defense interest. It has been reported and claimed — and I, myself, have raised it to ministers at the Defense Ministry in this country — that nothing they have been informed about regarding UFOs is of defense interest. Surely, to any sensible person, either of those explanations cannot fail to be of defense interest. That the Colonel of an American Air Force Base in Suffolk and his military men are hallucinating when there are nuclear-armed aircraft on the base — this must be of defense interest.

In one of my very first posts on this site, i detailed the tale related to me by a truck driver i has sat on since November 1980 because i lacked some concrete proof to back his tale up. On finding that one of the cornerstones of his story was 100% true and reference on-line to back it up. I chose to publish it. That was that, the guy by simply giving me a lift, was risking his very job, so he must have had a deep need to tell someone what had happened.

Then , earlier this year, another person comes forward and details yet another sighting of a landed craft from the winter of 1980, witnessed by him and 3 others.

As such, I am predisposed to believe that something pretty major was going down in England in that winter, one can only guess at how many others might come forward and tell their own tale, given the opportunity. Yes, it might have been some huge *psi op* exercise. but, to this date, no-one has come forward to suggest anything like that was happening.

The incident at Rendlesham seems to neatly fit into some sort of pattern, even down to a similar description of the landed object from 2 sources some 150 miles and several weeks apart..

Offhand, i can think of no other time, in the annals of Ufology, where three landings were clearly witnessed within 150 miles of each other, over such a short space of time...




[edit on 14-7-2009 by FireMoon]

reply to post by FireMoon

Thanks for that but reflect on this. . . Could the object sighted on the second night be someting else completely and not be related to the 9ft triangular shaped object experienced by Penniston? Maybe we're connecting the nights when in fact they are seperate incidents! I don't honestly think the third night happened. Like you said, Warren was almost certainly messed with because he fitted the description as being someone who was a free spirit. They knew he would not stay quiet and would speak out. I take the stories of capel green with a huge pinch of salt. For one thing, if so many UK police constables had been present for this interaction then surely one of them would have come forward by now? You only have to consider how many American airmen who have stepped forward to describe what happened, where are the British bobbies?

If we are ever going to understand what happened we should, in my opinion, be concentrating on the first initial meeting between Penniston and the unknown not trying to guess what did or didn't happen on the other nights.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

If we are ever going to understand what happened we should, in my opinion, be concentrating on the first initial meeting between Penniston and the unknown not trying to guess what did or didn't happen on the other nights.

Yes and no...I understand what you are saying. Penniston is really the guy that makes this case stand out. But I do know that there is a bit of bad skeptic logic where they dice up every "instance" and debunk each piece with a alternate explanation and then discard the event as a whole. So debunk the first night, then you can go to the 2nd and then to the 3rd and then say nothing really odd happened at all. It's a little tricky...kind of like zooming in on a masterpiece of art and saying "hey this is just a brush stroke--nothing interesting", but in total it becomes quite the display.

I think we need to wait on the MOD releasing more of their info on this case, which I thought was coming this year? Seems like we've been waiting for a while...must be someone's neck on the line or something. Halt's statement about admitting it was "ET" at this point seems like a strategic move.

Either way this case is plain bizarro--either aliens, Russians, or psy-op Americans (or all three!) have a hand in this.

Anyone got a date for the next MOD/UFO archive release?

reply to post by Atomic


Well the whole Rendlesham Forest episode is made even more bizarre when you consider what else was going on that night when Penniston chased the unknown through the woods. For one thing, a Russian satelite burnt up in the skies directly over the area causing a huge fireball to streak across the sky. As well as this the NSA who had a base on Orford Ness were carrying out an over the horizon radar test which it theorised could have thrown huge amounts of electro magnetic energy into the general area of Rendlesham. We know that test subjects who have been emersed in these electro magnetic fields have all manner of strange paranormal like experiences and that they can also bring about very vivid hallucinations. . . Considering that these fields must have been huge those American airmen who found themselves in this field would have had shared hallucinations! Could it be that the whole incident is nothing but a shared hallucination?
I doubt it. It seems just as unlikely as the theory that the area was visited by alien beings. . . I agree with the sentiments of most that something amazing happened in Rendlesham Forest. It's only the amount of incidents that I question, and what caused them. Something truly bizarre happened the first night (Penniston), maybe the second night (Halt) but I think the third night is a smoke screen; a lie to make the whole episode seem to strange for the average person to take seriously.

Well, here is an interview with Col. Halt on C2C, three days old. He describes pretty clear what happened, very good interview in my opinion.
The interview starts at 5.28