The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

reply to post by Imtor


I am no more sure the story is real than Penniston's glyphs and binary code stories. La Plume did appear on forums and radio with other witnesses in 2009 & 2010. However you should treat it like any other testimony. I thought the statement was intriguing enough for discussion on here though.

Originally posted by mirageman
I tried to in the first post gambon. I actually used the "wayback machine" to verify what I had on file/ But ATS has failed to render it properly.

I will try again by giving full instructions in the first post again

Thanks for fixing that, giving instructions like that is a good way to handle it because yes, ATS has a problem with wayback machine links. One alternative I think works is to put the waybackmachine link into a tinyurl, then the tinyurl link might work, but I think your solution is a good one.

Regarding that story, I'm not sure what to think. The fact that he says "I was a mess mentally" definitely puts my confidence level below 100%, but it was an interesting read, so thanks for sharing it.

Originally posted by Imtor
It reads as a romance or some sci fi book, how can one remember gestures, details of staring at each other, saying what and what not.. are you sure this story is real?

When something like an honest to goodness sighting of a UFO up close that is three football fields in length you tend to remember everything, including the details.

I've read through these posts and am appalled that many believe the La Plume sighting right off the bat without a hint of incredulity! The guy appears in 2010, 2011 on radio with a story and bam! What about the intervening 30 yrs? Why now? Where is everybody's # detectors?! You can't all be that easy, can you? That is why Ufology isn't taken seriously by most scientists. This continual gullibility whenever someone has a tall tale to tell..It's deplorable.

It was getting a bit too late last night to add my own comments on the Steve La Plume part of the story and Rendlesham in general. Having finally found the details, verified them, edited them down to something more concise and digestible and posted them it was gone midnight here in the UK.

La Plume did appear back in 2010 on the Return to Rendlesham radio show behindtheparanormal.com... . It is fairly unique in that major witnesses Halt, Penniston, Burroughs, Warren and his co-author Peter Robbins all appear along with researchers Nick Pope, Bill Birnes, Stanton Friedman, Linda Moulton Howe and Gary Heseltine across a number of shows . For anyone who wants to research this case further all podcasts are available free of charge.

So, La Plume's tale of his days at the twin bases seems to be one of a fearful paranoid young man. The question is, was it down to his own fragile mental state, independent of the people and environment at Bentwaters/Woodbridge or were they a catalyst to trigger this state of mind?

Larry Warren has hinted at a large number of recruits being "placed" at the base for a reason, and that perhaps some exotic experiment was going on with them all. It seems unlikely in my opinion. Surely Halt would not have sent his infamous memo if this was all a test. Perhaps the reason was that these young men were there was that they were not up there with the best recruits of the US Air Force. Maybe Bentwaters was seen as the destination for those who didn't quite fit in? If La Plume's story is true then it supports the stories of many strange goings in the area of East Anglia beyond 3 days over Christmas 1980. If not then what should we make of it? He does appear to have faded out of the limelight again. Was his story true or another diversion?

There are no real answers to Rendlesham. Something strange may have really happened there but all we seem to get is more questions?

Why did Penniston see a triangular craft, glyph like markings, made notes for 45 mins, took photos than came out all blurred and even received a machine to brain binary download from the said craft whilst John Burroughs standing within a few yards of him remembers none of this?

Why does Halt insist he saw craft that were under "intelligent control" beaming lights onto the base but there was no major red alert and he took a couple of weeks to send his low key memo onto the RAF.?

Why does Warren insists he saw aliens and an underground facility when there is little evidence to back him up on that one?

Maybe some, if not all of the witnesses, have been "meddled with" by sinister forces hiding some real truth? Or maybe there is a more logical explanation to why their stories are so fragmented?

I can honestly say that it seems impossible who to believe now.

John Burroughs seems to be the most level headed of the witnesses who has changed his story very little since 1980. He has been critical of Halt, Penniston and Warren but seems to have developed an uneasy truce with Penniston in recent years. Perhaps for fear of being sidelined. Burroughs has claimed Halt tried to keep him out of documentaries over the years and that Halt knows a lot more than he is telling. A Machiavellian game is still being played out by these guys after all these years and only Warren will admit to this day that nuclear warheads were stored at the base.

I have known about this case since the 1980s as a kid ,when it first broke, watched the "Strange But True" and "Unsolved Mysteries" TV shows in the 1990s and read books "You Can't Tell the People" and "Left at East Gate". Since the turn of the century I have accumulated a number of documents and podcasts, and TV/radio shows on the subject.

If people aren't bored with Rendlesham and this thread doesn't fade away then I'll look over them again and see if there is anything else of interest.

Originally posted by spacehoax1
I've read through these posts and am appalled that many believe the La Plume sighting right off the bat without a hint of incredulity! The guy appears in 2010, 2011 on radio with a story and bam! What about the intervening 30 yrs? Why now? Where is everybody's # detectors?! You can't all be that easy, can you? That is why Ufology isn't taken seriously by most scientists. This continual gullibility whenever someone has a tall tale to tell..It's deplorable.

Hi spacehoax.

It is perfectly acceptable to remain sceptical of his claims or of any claims in this story. Any witness story should not be taken on face value without corroborating evidence. You are right about the "gullibility" factor and all the other crap that comes with Ufology. We should deal with facts not opinions. And most of the facts are very thin aren't they?

I may be wrong but I think that Halt endorses the sightings in Jan 1981 by La Plume, with his comments in podcasts at behindtheparanormal.com... Thereby re-inforcing La Plume's version of events. Although it may have been on another interview. I honestly can't remember as it was a few years since I listened to them. I do know he appears on at least one of those podcasts with Halt and there is no question from Halt about whether La Plume served at Woodbridge/Bentwaters.

Give me a while and I'll confirm this for you or admit that my memory is failing

The light house theory has been debunked by the UFO Hunters doco team. Many You Tube clips on this. Here is the first one www.youtube.com... and you will have to search for the rest.

Originally posted by Light soul
The light house theory has been debunked by the UFO Hunters doco team. Many You Tube clips on this. Here is the first one www.youtube.com... and you will have to search for the rest.

You didn't read the witness statements from Burroughs and Cabansag I take it?

Not only did UFO Hunters get the model wrong as we already discussed here, but they ignore the Burroughs and Cabansag witness statements saying they followed the light from the lighthouse for 2 miles. How could they do that if the light from the lighthouse wasn't visible?

That was one of the worst UFO Hunters episodes ever.

There are so many versions of this that I get confused.

There are many versions because, well, that tends to happen when you're making things up...read the witness statements? Read Penniston's. No mention of walking up to a craft and inspecting it..he drew a box shaped UFO..quite different from the one that circulates now among the community ..(triangular..) from several different viewpoints...he drew the now classic version for a tv show years later.... I don't believe him anymore..I think he's full of it...

reply to post by spacehoax1


I dont think you can dismiss the whole incident because of Penniston- there were many more witnesses than that.

Yeah,,there are many more witnesses..and they all have different stories, one being by that Larry dude. He says he was drugged and taken to an underground bunker and saw the aliens themselves! Or something like that. Burroughs now says the contact point was at a different place then what was generally accepted since the beginning of this "incident." No one can keep their stories straight. And think about it. There is no evidence. Just stories. They are all vastly entertaining from one stand point, but entertaining stories are not evidence. "Binary download??!" After thirty years!!?? Come on!
Trouble is, when you go back and read the initial witness statements, and take a good honest look at it, you can't help but come to the conclusion that various fairy tales have been spun through the years so what we have today is a story that has evolved to the point of confusion, exaggerations, and outright lies.
An avalanche of people jumping to conclusions not based on evidence but what they desire to be true.
Humans do that a lot. It's the condition of our humanity, to sometimes lie to ourselves when confronted with the truth.

reply to post by spacehoax1


Sure, I agree with you up to a point. But I still think in the centre of this there is a very unusual happening, and just because some of the witnesses have 'embellished' their stories somewhat over the years does not write it off. Thats not 'wanting to believe something', thats just looking at the case and making a judgement based on the evidence.

It is exactly the fact that they've embellished their stories that you have to write it off! This my point! You don't have to lie to be believed unless you want others to believe a lie. I don't see the point in having to "embellish" the story. You can't go on a voyage of discovery with a past riddled in lies. I'm done with Rendlesham. It is only too plain to see that this is one case that is fatally damaged.
Remember the Gulf Breeze sightings? Remember how that case fired up the imaginations of many UFO believers? Look how that case unraveled. I admit to having initially believed it because, in the end, it was what I and many others wanted to believe, truth be told. That's what happens when you take an uncritical look at UFO incidents. Eyewitness testimony can only take you so far, so long. In order for the community to progress there must be a higher standard in which to further the UFO case. I still believe there is, just not Rendlesham.

reply to post by spacehoax1


Yes - The only real "evidence" in the Rendlesham case is the 'original' witness statements, the Halt Memo, the Halt tape recording (and gleaned from that the radiation readings - which no seems to be able to agree about whether they represented any real evidence).

Penniston's notebook which due to it's "filofax" design means pages could easily be added, moved and removed is at best a contentious piece of evidence (It would be interesting to confirm if this was standard USAF issue in 1980).



Did Penniston really draw these at the time of the sighting?

I find the contradictory witness statements (which have grown and changed down the years) to be totally frustrating. We could expect some difference based on each individual's perspective. But Burroughs and Pennistion were standing within yards of each other when Penniston allegedly spent 45 mins walking round and examining a craft. Burroughs only recalls seeing lights and does not recall getting close enough to see a craft.

Another thing that remains odd about Rendlesham is that there were 2 (and maybe 3) nights when the USAF personnel went out into the forest. Repeat sightings in the same location are fairly rare.

Following the first night a number of USAF men and vehicles go out into the forest again. Halt is traipsing round studying the ground, tree damage and radiation readings. He also reports in multiple sightings of various coloured lights. But at no time does it seem to become a major alert. No helicopters or other air cover is called for despite Halt exclaiming "this is unreal" as beams of light start to shine down onto the base and in front of him. Which suggests that Halt wanted to keep things low key. Meanwhile Larry Warren is watching little aliens communicating with a senior officer out in the forest accompanied by a number of other airmen.

You have to conclude that at least some of the witnesses are exaggerating or lying. Either that or they have false memories. There is still a story here but not the one that it first seemed.




By the way I listened again to the show with Halt and La Plume again. Halt does not throw any doubt on La Plume's story but neither did he endorse it.It may have been on a different show . False memories hey!

Originally posted by mirageman
Penniston's notebook which due to it's "filofax" design means pages could easily be added, moved and removed is at best a contentious piece of evidence (It would be interesting to confirm if this was standard USAF issue in 1980).



Did Penniston really draw these at the time of the sighting?

One person who should know, John Burroughs who was there with him, says he didn't:

Penniston's notebook

In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes (see picture below). However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (presumably meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.”

Even in Penniston's own witness statement he says he never got closer to it than 50 meters, so it's obvious that there are more problems with his story than just the notebook, like his 45 minute walk around the object that Burroughs said never happened, which even Penniston's statement says never happened. Penniston's credibility of anything he said after his original witness statement: extremely low.

ahh nigel kerr was in cant tell the people and mentioned by nick pope

quote from cant tell the people (for what its worth) by bruni

"on checking the radar he realized there was indeed something on their approach line , at first he thought it was a helicopter,however it remained stationary for three or four sweeps across their screens before it dissipated"

Originally posted by gambon
ahh nigel kerr was in cant tell the people and mentioned by nick pope

quote from cant tell the people (for what its worth) by bruni

"on checking the radar he realized there was indeed something on their approach line , at first he thought it was a helicopter,however it remained stationary for three or four sweeps across their screens before it dissipated"

Nick Pope also mentions in this interview that 'evidence' for the Rendlesham incident was sent to a military installation in Germany (but doesn't mention the nature of it):

One of the things people are going to have learn to live with when it comes to cases such as this one is the following. In such cases, from my own experience down the years, it is not uncommon for two people standing next to each other to have totally different experiences of what happened

Now, I'm afraid if that offends your sensibilities or affronts your whole rationale on life, that's actually tough because you are missing out on a whole side of Ufology that might well hold a key to some understanding of it all. Reality as I and most of the Western world grew up in believing, actually doesn't exist. The truth is our whole life is actually a totally subjective experience, we know that because how the quantum world exists. The ramifications of that are huge in that, it means that someone , something and even ourselves can actually alter experiences as they happen.

As I've posted before a person who became a friend reported a sighting and an encounter, Their partner can corroborate all the details before and after the encounter, during it they had a totally different experience whilst standing next to their partner. One spoke to a non human intelligence the other saw nothing , heard nothing and actually can't really remember anything at all for a period of about 20 minutes.

In a sense, divergent testimony at multi-person close up encounters are often a more reliable guide to them genuinely having "Happened" than those where several people all agree on the same details. it's also why you don't see many at all in books or on-line as, quite understandably, the people involved talk to each other and then decide. "Well who the hell would believe us, when all had different experiences"?

I'd say this, if you go and watch a whole load of soldiers talking about the same battle, a similar "out there" experience often you can end up thinking. "Hang on they were totally different experiences". You don't immediately start saying. "Oh they didn't agree one of them must be lying" During World War if the Germans had had as many Tiger tanks as soldiers who reckon they fought them they had about 3-4000 of them when actually, on any given day they never had more than 70 fit for action in the whole of the Western sphere. It was their reputation that went before them and led people to assume any German tank was a Tiger. Based on people's analysis about UFO encounters, you'd actually be claiming 100s of troops were lying about serving at the front in WW2 as their testimony is provably wrong in its' detail.

What happened at Rendlesham was this. A bunch of solid no nonsense military types had an experience that led to them all, almost "going native" and it totally changing their world view. Shortly before the incident an immensely popular pilot had killed himself, with no warning, in the months following the incident, the suicide rate on the base was statistically anomalous. It doesn't make it aliens, it just means it was a genuinely weird experience and several of the witnesses exhibit the symptoms of PTS in its' aftermath. I'm sorry however, anyone who thinks chasing a lighthouse around led to that sort of fallout really does need to get a grip on reality.