Rendlesham Forest was hoax

I loved this bit,

Mr Turtill said the wagon's burned-out chassis stood in the forest for 20 years until it was finally removed.

You would think that the witnesses might have noticed something like that. Hell what about the documentary makers that have filmed and photographed the site since. I definitely remember seeing several such documentaries about this case during the mid nineties.

reply to post by deprogrammer


Well put , WE will probably never know what went on , only the people that were there know for sure , all we can do is use common sense and common sense tells me that USAF personnel can tall the difference between a burning truck, lighthouse or a cars spotlights and something moving through the trees and flying in the sky

[edit on 5-9-2009 by gortex]

I could absolutely believe that a burning fertilizer truck could be mistaken for a UFO then blown out of proportion over the years. Whether or not the guy is lying or not doesn't really concern me, because chances are better than good that there IS a rational explanation that doesn't concern aliens. Burning poo and aluminum is actually a pretty decent case.

One thing about cases like these, where the only real evidence is anecdotal and eyewitness, is that there's no possible way to keep the stories from becoming ever exaggerated over the years, in the same way that the struggle between a fisherman and his record catch 20 years ago becomes the epic stuff of legend every time he tells it.

So, burning truck being towed through the forest... Sounds much more rational to me than an extraterrestrial aircraft from beyond the stars.

Seriously, it would have to have been a burning fertilizer truck falling from the sky. Now that story might have been credible.

Originally posted by UFOexisist
The rendlesham Forest was a big hoax see this newsarticle: News article
This makes my belief in aliens able to travel to us much weaker and I somehow doubt wether the they exist or not? I think the evidence for existence is so small nearly nothing than evidence that those being as stated above exist. I mean where are they?

[edit on 5-9-2009 by UFOexisist]

Hi UFOexisist, anyone has to make up his own mind about the value/reality of that case someday right.
And if that news article makes your belief in aliens able to travel to us much weaker, and even change your view whether ET’s exist or not, then that's totally up to you of course.

But you know, that article/driver really reminded me of that BS story of Doug and Dave back then, the men who claimed that they were in fact responsible for making all those crop circles in England if you can remember it.
So, that was nothing more than a BS disinformation performance just like this one.

But I assume you already knew this, right.

I thought this article was hilarious! Anyone who is satisfied with this explanation needs their head testing... It's ridiculous! How does a truck of burning fertiliser produce lights that enter and leave the forest, send beams of light down to the ground, produce little balls of blue light which travel all the way to a bunch of deluded soldiers one of which is sitting in a vehicle when these lights shoot in and out through the windows...

The Rendlesham forest incident took place over three nights for a start.... people in the observation towers observed three pyramid shaped objects in the sky which stayed for hours, Jim Penniston saw and drew a small pyramid shaped craft which had markings on it, looked like it was dripping molten metal and took off silently through the trees. Halt saw a huge light which he described as looking like an eye winking, then a large mist was in a field on the final night, a red light appeared above it and a huge pill shaped object appeared which changed the colour and compounds of the soil where it was... The base commander talked to three small beings, the soliers were then debriefed, given a drug which was supposed to wipe their memories and all for what? A truck of burning fertiliser? The MoD and the DoD then instigated an ET hypothesis cover up.....

So far the theories are:
The lighthouse
It was a police officer in his car in the woods flashing his emergency lights
It was a truck of burning fertilizer
An ejector pod from a russian spy plane (although where the plane and pilot went is a mystery... maybe they were abducted by aliens?)
A dropped nuke and then search using helicopters troops and flares (although no aircraft were operational and no helicopters were deployed and you'd think a Col on an air base would know a helicopter when he saw one)
Over the horizon radar experiments at Bawdry and Orfordness opened up an interdimensional porthole and attracted beings/objects from another dimension.
ET stopping a nuclear accident.
Time travellers from 40,000 years in the future coming back to stop a cataclysmic event.
ET just happening to break down and need repair
It was a prank gone wrong...
I'm sure there are more...

Problem is, some people believe what they read... the lighthouse theory Ian Ridpath came up with stuck like mud but if you go there you can only see a tiny pinprick of light in the distance, no way would they mistake that for any of the things I've mentioned above.

It's probably a pathetic dig at Charles Halt and Gary Hessletine for writing a script and trying to get a movie made about it... A truck of burning #... I reckon if the records from the local fire department were checked for that weekend there would be no record of this alleged fire.

Thats my twopenneth worth anyway

Docu,link. bbc documentary

After just watching this documentary for a couple of minutes, you soon realize how ridiculous the newspaper article truly is.

I've been although that forest on 3 occasions, and while I do remember some old abandoned vehicles, there is no way anything like this was responsible for the story told, not a chance.

As some have already said the lighthouse explanation was well better, however, that doesn't even come close to explain the incident either, but it does depend on how accurate the story was told in the first place.

Some of the recent Government document released do show the incident was taken seriously, but by the time it was reported to the MOD by the Americans, there was no reason to dig deeper, I think the delay was 2 weeks I could be wrong.

What does get me is, the incident was reported by Military personnel, responsible for and in charge of Nuclear weapon storage, there is no reason whatsoever to question their story, it's fine for them to protect, deploy, and have access to some of the Worlds most secret warehouses in the World, especially at that time with all the CND infiltration attempts and protests, security was the tightest, but then they were mistaken or imagining it according to many skeptics, but that is their usual tactic when they don't have a reasonable enough explanation of their own?.

You don't put men with vivid imaginations in charge of guarding some of the deadliest weapons known to man, if they did we are all in deep trouble.

Those men responded to something, and IMO it was something incredible and unexplainable, until the real official documents are released, everything can only be speculation, I for one believe the incident was very real, I also believe those men who have yet to come forward have a lot to add to the whole thing.

But no way was it a burning truck, or even the lighthouse, the lighthouse could not have possibly have been responsible, even accounting for the height of the tree's at that time.

Got to say though, this is one of those incidents that gets on my nerves from time to time (not always) because there is always some yahoo who has something to add, who has never been within 100 miles of the place, yet has the gaul to call into question the word of some highly intelligent, and highly trained, men, who are trained to be observant, and to understand what it is they are looking at, the actual site is hard enough to find with help, even those involved had a hard time retracing their steps accurately within just a week of the event.

Also a lot of it comes down to them being told to keep quiet about it, what I believe is that it was a major embarrassment to the base commanders, the MOD, and the US Military, and a lot was done to sweep it under the carpet by adding the official secrets act into the equation, I also believe Nick Pope is tied under the same act, as nice as he is, he has no choice but is trying his best, for all any body knows he could still be under their employment, he did pop up very suddenly, slowly changing from skeptic, to believer, but if he is still employed as a Civil Servant, then what he claims crossed his desk has to come into question, it was his job, and he must have had clearance to ask the questions to achieve that job, he wasn't there to answer the phone, and sign generic reply letters, he was there to determine threats to British air space.

But he is a nice guy so it seems, I just have questions as to why they allowed him to go public in the first place.

The release of documents is just giving us what we want, at the bare minimum, there are so many different documents and photographs supposedly missing, their claim of revealing what they have, is a complete joke, they have no intention of handing out the complete truth, and that's a fact.

All over the World countries are releasing their top secret files on the subject, after more than 60 years, you have to ask why? why now all of a sudden? IMO we are being fed information designed to distract away from the real evidence hidden away, and a lot of it has been swallowed by those who sat on the fence.

It's project Mogul all over again, but on a huge scale, leaving us with some answers, but also leaving a lot of questions.

Where are the Photographs?

Very well put. i recently asked Ian Ridpath for a full explanation of all the events that occurred that weekend including the lights JB saw going through the vehicle... He did concede that objects had been observed from the observation tower that were reportedly pyramid shaped and were seen from the ground also. They also had different coloured lights flashing underneath them. His reply was that the angle of the glass in the tower had distorted stars making them appear to be pyramid shaped and the lights seen underneath were simply the apprent "flashing" of a star as the light waves bend causing the illusion of flashing... this is a new addition. Can you imagine his reaction if a witness added something or changed an element of their story? As yet he has not defined the other occurences he failed to mention on his site.

Anyway, look no further because I have single handedly solved the mystery of the Rendlesham forest incident. It was a weather balloon full of swamp gas that was hit by a ball of spontaneously occuring plasma which then exploded and created an incident of quantum entanglement which then collided into the lighthouse causing it to wildly pogo through the forest changing colour and shape as it went while sending beams of pencil thin light down onto the forest floor. It wasn't truck remains they found in the forest... it was the weather balloon.

First, this thread looks like the same topic as this thread:
posted on 4-9-2009 @ 09:26 AM
Britain's most celebrated UFO sighting was a "lorry full of fertiliser"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So why did you create a duplicate thread?

You could have posted in the existing thread on this topic

Second, about the recording:

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
What???

A soldier actually touched the craft, in fact several people saw it on the ground and in the air. How do burning trucks fly?

At least the lighthouse explanation made sense, although it was still incorrect

I thought it was interesting the way the recording by Col. Halt would say "there it is again" and if you timed when he said that, it was at regular intervals, just like the lighthouse lights were at regular intervals.

But the lighthouse didn't explain the Sargent going up to the craft and touching it. He even showed his little notebook where he made notes about the craft, and symbols on it, which at the time I saw it, I found very convincing, so I bought his story even if I was suspicious about the lighthouse timing with the tape recording.

But then I looked into it some more and found what Ignorethefacts found:

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I don't believe in anything really concerning Rendlesham. Too many stories changed and evolved over the years, plus when you look at the facts surrounding everything at the time it falls apart with even a cursory examination. The guys didn;t actually know which way they were facing after all, they sure as hell didn't take any Geiger counter readings that mattered (just look at the equipment they used) and they changed/made stuff up over the years. Utter Rubbish.

But, I will say I don't believe this guy's story either. Come on, a burning fertilizer truck?!? That's laughable.

Actually, the story DID change over the years! The guy saying he touched the craft wasn't in the early version of the story I found. Once I noticed all the inconsistencies in the story and how it changed over the years, it became far less interesting to me. Something happened but it got all blown out of proportion and took on a life of its own.

And even if the guy's truck DID catch on fire, that wouldn't explain the timing in Col. Halt's tape the way the lighthouse does. So Col Halt was probably looking at something to do with the lighthouse, not any burning truck.

The lighthouse theory has been debunked through actual testing through models and going out and doing feild work.

Maybe there was a truck on fire that night too - somewhere else in the forest, but it would not have been what these trained military men saw.

And vesta - no, I didnt see it myself, but I have seen cars and vehicles on fire before. A fire looks like a fire..even through trees and from far a way. It flickers, crackles and pops. A steady light does not do this. Do you honestly think these military men would not have smelt smoke etc if it were a fire? Fire isn't shaped like a pyramid either and it doesn't leave heavy 'divots' in the ground where it 'lands' either.

If it was a fire we would never have heard about this incident. This journo should be fired from his job for not doing his research and being a bit more objective.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by swinggal]

Regardless what really happened there, this guy's story CANNOT be taken seriously: uncorroborated claims are ZERO value, especially if someone has a mug like that one. If i'd had a face like that, i would keep hidden forever rather than trying to debunk anything.
But really, since when five rows of claims are able to debunk anything: if we want to talk seriously about the incident, as many tried to do, then let's start another thread but let's put this article to rest: and someone provide the guy with a new face.

I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters from 83 to 85.

From what I've heard/been told, versus this story?

Bunk!

If you look at the original witness statements Jim Penniston said he saw it, he touched it, he drew it... right from the start and has never altered his position on this.

I think this is meant to be a direct hit and the guys involved for two reasons... The first one is that Halt has now said he saw extra terrestrial beings in the forest and not just lights and objects... The fact he said "objects" from the beginning people have always assumed that he meant ufo's.. there has been a war of semantics over this... he never said he saw extra terrestrial which is his new claim.

The second reason is that John Burroughs is currently organizing a 30 year reunion and is pushing for more witnesses to come forward, he wants top brass there too if possible and is even considering having the reuniion in the states because most of the people involved live there. This is active disinformation meant to discourage anyone else from coming forward and talking about what they saw. Let us not forget that not everyone believes it was ET... some think it was a dropped nuke, others think it was something to do with the Russians and the cold war... Now it doesn't have to be ET does it? If anyone of those possibilities are true, especially a dropped nuke and someone KNOWS this then the MoD and the DoD will NOT want this to become public... so this is not just about the possibility of extra terrestrial life it is most definitely a defence issue. So with a lorry full of burning #, let the mud slinging begin and put anyone off from being associated with it.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by sashwah]

By the way... if you actually go to the forest as I and many others have, you will see that the suggestion that it was a lighthouse they were following through the trees is ridiculous, you can only see if from the field where Larry said he and others witnessed the craft appear when it had previously been a mist... The other landing site is deep in the forest... Impossible to see the lighthouse which is ten miles away from there.

sorry your wrong..

i spoke to they guy in the pub.. funny

im sat chilling with friends down my local and i ask this guy for a light, so we get talking.. them boom it hit me who it was and spat out my pint. he told me more than ill say out of respect but hes in England and i had many drinks and hes NO fake....





[edit on 6-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

I know.. he's great is Larry... we're friends. I'm seeing him this weekend as it happens.

Can I ask what you mean by you're wrong...? Respectfully of course...

I have done thousands of hours of research into this, I'm writing a book.. I either know or have spoken to all of the people involved at the time, even those who think it was a cold war event. I've consulted astrophysicists, physicists, and quantum physicists.. for the time traveler theory and have spent a week in Devon with Larry and Peter Robbins... I've argued with Ian Ridpath and asked him to explain a few things he hasn't yet.. and still hasn't... that's because he cannot find an alternative theory for lights shooting through car windows amongst quite a few other occurrences... and at no point have I stated what I truly believe happened there... only what the politics behind this press release could be.

reply to post by sashwah


i mean larry is not a fake, when you see him tell him dan from lark lane says hi

hes 100% the real deal and a great friend and guy.. he gets my respect hands down

and he has a sweet bike

spoke to him 3 months ago in liverpool england lark lane pub the albert and my friend can back me up

sorry you are wrong was for the OP

[edit on 6-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

reply to post by EsSeeEye


so does god and some bloke walking on water?

time to make a thread.... you just grated me.

Aah.. sorry I thought it was directed at me...

You don't need your mate to back you up hon.. Larry is a very sociable person and having spent as much time with him as I have I know for sure he's telling the truth. And yeah his bike is great... although he couldn't ride last time I saw him, he had his leg in a pot.

I'm going to Liverpool this weekend to meet with him and Peter again. I'll probably have a terrible hangover come sunday!!

I'll tell him you said Hi

This is lifted straight from a forum where Ian ridpath is a contributing member as is John Burroughs, Jim Penniston, Larry, Steve La Plume and many others. This is a post written by Ian ridpath regarding the lighthouse....

IanR Post subject: Re: Charles Halt, Press release.Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:50 pm


Established Member

Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm
Posts: 175 puddlepirate wrote:
Ian R's lighthouse theory that proposed Orfordness lighhouse as the primary cause for Penniston's, Burrough's and Cabansag's excursion into the forest has been proven to be incorrect because it is not possible to see the lighthouse from east gate.

I have never suggested the lighthouse was the prime cause of P, B and C's excursion into the forest, nor have I ever suggested that it is visible from East Gate, and I don't understand why you would think otherwise if you have read what I have written. I'm sure we went over this at least once before last year, but clearly to no avail as it's evident that you are still going round in a circle of incomprehension.