The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

Originally posted by FireMoon
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.

Actually you're reinforcing the point Neil Tyson makes about humans being poor data collection devices.

In law school, students are often shown a video of some kind of mock crime occurring and then asked to recall what they saw as "eyewitnesses" to the video. As you suggest, even though they all saw the same video, they can recall dramatically different things. This doesn't offend my sensibilities, but instead it confirms some well-researched human deficiencies in observation.

Now here's where we differ: when you say reality doesn't exist. The law students are then sometimes given an opportunity to rewind the tape and watch it over as many times as they want. They are then usually able to correct their initial mistakes in perception, and more or less come to an agreement of what is shown on the tape. So in this example there actually IS an objective reality, represented by the videotape, which is separate from the witnesses different recollections.

Also this might be one reason for the origin of the expression "pics or it didn't happen". Obviously things can happen without pictures but that expression is an acknowledgement that human recollection of events is less than perfect.

Also in the Rendlesham case we have Penniston and Halt changing their stories. This isn't a matter of disagreeing with someone else, they don't even agree with themselves at different points in time. There are words to describe these behaviors, like memory distortion, confabulation, fabrication, and so on. The usual answer to this problem is that the recollection closest to the time of the incident is usually the most accurate.

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.

If you put the fallout aside, do you agree that both the Burroughs and Cabansag witness statements say they followed a flashing light for two miles before they realized it was coming from a lighthouse? I never said the lighthouse was the only thing that happened, but some people seem to deny it was a factor, while the witness statements suggest it was at least one factor in what happened.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You're retreading the same old turgid rubbish that is trying to make rational sense from an irrational experience. An unknown apparently self illumination object was seen by civilians and dozens of military personnel. To the extent it has been claimed they sent armed troops out onto the sovereign land of another country to investigate. You don't join the military because you want to face uncertainty you are not fully trained for , you join because it based on certainty therefore, when military people are confronted by the uncertain, psych wise, they are often the very least able to cope. Arguing the toss over details in cases like this is utterly pointless as they were that "freaked out" by being so close to something "unknown" their cognitive brain functions were interrupted and with regards to what happened, might well still be out there in la la land.

In actual fact the whole binary code thing, if people actually studied UFOs properly and didn't just skim the subject they would know straight off. Ahhhhh , the classic discovering you have a talent you never you knew you had thing, which has a distinct similarity to a "religious" experience.

Why not talk about Ray Gulyas, Gordon Levett, Munroe Nevilles, Lori Rehfeldt, Ann Hopton, Scott,Arthur Smekle, Tony Sorrel , Mike Verrano, Marina Webb or Julia Abbot?

Why not ask why, none of the dozens of people involved in the incidents, has ever come out and said. "Nothing happened it was all one huge mistake?"

So Penniston's story has changed, big deal, so has Halt's commander, who wasn't a witness to either incident, from "Something very strange happened" to "Nothing happened".

Why not comment on how, the testimony of those who experience was more "stand off" is actually remarkably consistent and it's only those who saw it up close who seem to be confused? Could it be that, in the same way these objects have the ability to shut down electrical systems they also disrupt the way the brain works and therefore memory, when you come too close?

Or we could just spend another 16 pages arguing the toss about a theory that is a best, a side issue and worst, a totally busted flush and is the tactics employed by those who simply don't have the mental faculties to cope with what actually might well have happened?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

But you forget there is a record of an official witness statement. It was from 1980 and it belonged to Sgt Jim Penniston. It was declassified in 1998 under FOIA request.

His statement had drawings and sketches of the object and he described what happened to him out there in the forest. The fact is he reported about this object right away almost after he saw it. So your theory doesn't hold up unless he was lying at that time about seeing this craft? And that is a big if, because when people talk about him back than they said he was no nonsense and highly credible military guy.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FireMoon
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.

Actually you're reinforcing the point Neil Tyson makes about humans being poor data collection devices.

In law school, students are often shown a video of some kind of mock crime occurring and then asked to recall what they saw as "eyewitnesses" to the video. As you suggest, even though they all saw the same video, they can recall dramatically different things. This doesn't offend my sensibilities, but instead it confirms some well-researched human deficiencies in observation.

Now here's where we differ: when you say reality doesn't exist. The law students are then sometimes given an opportunity to rewind the tape and watch it over as many times as they want. They are then usually able to correct their initial mistakes in perception, and more or less come to an agreement of what is shown on the tape. So in this example there actually IS an objective reality, represented by the videotape, which is separate from the witnesses different recollections.

Also this might be one reason for the origin of the expression "pics or it didn't happen". Obviously things can happen without pictures but that expression is an acknowledgement that human recollection of events is less than perfect.

Also in the Rendlesham case we have Penniston and Halt changing their stories. This isn't a matter of disagreeing with someone else, they don't even agree with themselves at different points in time. There are words to describe these behaviors, like memory distortion, confabulation, fabrication, and so on. The usual answer to this problem is that the recollection closest to the time of the incident is usually the most accurate.

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.

If you put the fallout aside, do you agree that both the Burroughs and Cabansag witness statements say they followed a flashing light for two miles before they realized it was coming from a lighthouse? I never said the lighthouse was the only thing that happened, but some people seem to deny it was a factor, while the witness statements suggest it was at least one factor in what happened.

edit on 5-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Were has Halt changed his story haven't heard about this? And i am fairly up to date on his story

Penniston, unfortunately kept something secret that he probably knows now he shouldn't have kept secret!


2010 he announced he had binary codes in his notebook and he claimed the UFO in 1980 gave the codes to him. Is this to be believed?

The question i have asked myself is that first time he has spoke of binary codes or anything to do with binary? If so i probably would have said this guy was lying and untrustworthy!

However its not the first time he spoke of binary in 1994 when he had officially retired from the US Airforce. He told Linda Multon Howe same year 1994 ( not sure if i have written her name correctly here) But he told her when he touched the craft in the forest. A light suddenly emitted from the UFO it was binary communication of some sort and entered into his mind. What kind of technology this was is unclear.

This info can can traced to 1994 because its detailed in one of her books from that time period.. Having received a communication and being binary wasn't a lie.

The only thing that is new is this for me is December 27th stuff in his notebook. Nobody knew of him having binary codes in his notebook prior to 2010. For me, if you take everything into account an anecdotal case could be made that Jim Penniston is telling the truth as he knows it to be!

Originally posted by FireMoon

Why not comment on how, the testimony of those who experience was more "stand off" is actually remarkably consistent and it's only those who saw it up close who seem to be confused? Could it be that, in the same way these objects have the ability to shut down electrical systems they also disrupt the way the brain works and therefore memory, when you come too close?

Or we could just spend another 16 pages arguing the toss about a theory that is a best, a side issue and worst, a totally busted flush and is the tactics employed by those who simply don't have the mental faculties to cope with what actually might well have happened?

I have to agree that it is possible that some of these witnesses are actually being "manipulated" as a result of their encounter, and that might be a reason why their account has changed - and they have described other things that they did not recall from that time.

I do however, understand why in the mind of a skeptic, this might be "proof" that the witnesses are lying and the whole case is nothing more than "a lighthouse", "some guys in a truck" or whatever.

Originally posted by P12SOLD
But you forget there is a record of an official witness statement. It was from 1980 and it belonged to Sgt Jim Penniston. It was declassified in 1998 under FOIA request.

If it's different from the one already posted in this thread, then post it. If you're talking about the one already posted, then I suggest you read it, as it supports what I say about 50 meters.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The area in front of us was lighting up a 30 metre area. When we got within a 50 metre distance, the object was producing red and blue light. The blue light was steady and projecting under the object.

It was up the area directly extending a metre or two out. At this point of positive identification I relayed to CSC, SSgt Coffey. A positing sighting of the object...1....Colour of lights and that it was definitely mechanical in nature.

This is the closest point that I was near the object at any point.

50 meters, the closest point according to Penniston. I kept a few typos like Rising against's spelling of "metre" even though Penniston's statement spells it "meter", see the original for yourself. If you have something different that wasn't one of his later changed stories, let's see it. He also draws a boxy shape which later gets changed to a more triangular shape.

Originally posted by P12SOLD
Were has Halt changed his story haven't heard about this? And i am fairly up to date on his story

I discussed that here. Unfortunately he can't go back and change his recording which he would now need to do to make his story consistent.

Just been thinking , i remember an experiment in physics in school where white light is sent through slots in a black card thing and the light is split into its colours? does anyone rember this , if I am remembering it right and not confusing it with anything else?

Anyway if it is as I remember it , could the trees have acted in a similar manner mebbe splitting it into some other colours?

reply to post by FireMoon


I do like your theories Firemoon and that the reality we are sure of may not exist. You may well be on to something.

In this case there is documented evidence to support that Penniston has at the very least exaggerated his story since 1980. Either his initial statement in 1980 is true, or he lied because he actually got close to the craft spent 45 mins exploring it but failed to mention this in his statement (this actually equates to spending the whole half of a football match wandering round something not much bigger than a large vehicle making notes - but maybe something warped his reality?) . He either made drawings in 1980 and received a binary code download, but kept them secret or he didn't. He ventured out and made plaster casts on the following day or he didn't. The waters are certainly muddy aren't they?

I am willing to entertain the theory that he (and others) were somehow got at, or brainwashed, into creating a story so it seems implausible. Perhaps dark forces were at work at Bentwaters meddling with minds? If we can no longer trust our memories then what becomes of our reality?

Originally posted by gambon
Just been thinking , i remember an experiment in physics in school where white light is sent through slots in a black card thing and the light is split into its colours? does anyone rember this , if I am remembering it right and not confusing it with anything else?

Anyway if it is as I remember it , could the trees have acted in a similar manner mebbe splitting it into some other colours?

I don't think that has to do with colors. Its a demonstration of wave pattern
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mirageman
reply to post by FireMoon

 

I do like your theories Firemoon and that the reality we are sure of may not exist. You may well be on to something.

In this case there is documented evidence to support that Penniston has at the very least exaggerated his story since 1980. Either his initial statement in 1980 is true, or he lied because he actually got close to the craft spent 45 mins exploring it but failed to mention this in his statement (this actually equates to spending the whole half of a football match wandering round something not much bigger than a large vehicle making notes - but maybe something warped his reality?) . He either made drawings in 1980 and received a binary code download, but kept them secret or he didn't. He ventured out and made plaster casts on the following day or he didn't. The waters are certainly muddy aren't they?

I am willing to entertain the theory that he (and others) were somehow got at, or brainwashed, into creating a story so it seems implausible. Perhaps dark forces were at work at Bentwaters meddling with minds? If we can no longer trust our memories then what becomes of our reality?

It certainly appears plausible (as a theory) that Jim and others have had their memories messed with. After all, isn't this one of the most basic common threads that runs through "alien abduction" accounts, be they real experiences or simply some sort of "mis-perceived" psychological experience/anomaly.

I would think that this might be some sort of technology that "the aliens" possess. It would allow them to alter the records if information got out that they didn't wish to be released. (Of course, here, I am thinking very much along human ways of logic and reason - but I have no way of knowing what an alien thought might be).

Wasn't this one of the cases on Larry King? I seem to recall James McGaha dismissing this as a lighthouse or a flying police car or something equally ridiculous.

I enjoyed this thoroughly, as the Rendlesham Incident was one of the first cases that got me into UFOlogy (along with Roswell of course).

You seem to have taken a lot of time putting such information together, but I was wondering if I can try to contribute, mainly dealing with the mystery location of Hy Brasil and why it was mentioned in the binary code.

I wish I could have made a separate post about it, but being a newb, I lack the posting abilities. Granted, I'm still lurking, but if anyone could help me with Rendlesham-Brasil connections, that would be great!

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh

That sounds like it would be on-topic so I see no reason to not post it, however just realize there is some skepticism about Penniston changing his story over time, and the fact this never came up before. For all I know the next time he tells the story he will say that he's determined the real location is in Australia, not Brazil, so no matter what anybody says about Brazil, I don't believe Penniston's latest incarnation of his story for one second. And I'm not the only skeptic.

Hey Firemoon,
Reality exists. Just so you know.
Events that happen at the quantum level of "reality" don't exactly scale up to the macroscopic world as neatly as you might imagine; theories based on observed phenomena at the quantum level simply aren't analogous to our shared reality of trees, rocks, and ipods.

Furthermore, I don't think "...our whole life..." is a subjective experience but our "truths" certainly appear to be at times.

You wrote...In your previous post....."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."

This is a recipe for disaster. Anybody remember the OJ trial?

Divergent testimony is to be expected of a multi-witnessed event..this is true, for an event that no one has questions about having happened, like a car crash, or a bank robbery, or a murder...but when all you have is a bunch of confusing stories...you can't take the stories and then make them the thing that confirms that the event took place in the first place...you know what I mean? In the end, it's just a collection of stories. What about the stories from the other side of the case, the ones that have been told that there weren't any unusual lights, that there was no radar, that Halt had a tendency to inflate the importance of things, according to superiors and peers that have talked about him since.

Of course, they could be in on the whole "conspiracy" to keep things "from getting out."

So, in the end, I'm simply not "married" to this case anymore. 8 yrs ago, yes. Mostly because of that dastardly Penniston ruining it with that cock and bull story of the "binary download." It forced me to re-examine the FIRST witness testimonies and compare them down through the years. It ain't pretty. There's only so much one can take before having to scream, "Stop the ride, I want to get off!!!"

Those bastards!

Originally posted by spacehoax1
So, in the end, I'm simply not "married" to this case anymore. 8 yrs ago, yes. Mostly because of that dastardly Penniston ruining it with that cock and bull story of the "binary download." It forced me to re-examine the FIRST witness testimonies and compare them down through the years. It ain't pretty. There's only so much one can take before having to scream, "Stop the ride, I want to get off!!!"

I'd give your post ten stars if I could. It's nice to see someone else looking for the truth and not married to one side of the debate or the other.

I too once believed Penniston's story, when I saw him tell it in documentaries, before I had researched the original witness statements, etc. I even thought the little notebook he kept was real. But since I've looked into this more thoroughly, I can't believe much beyond his original witness statement anymore. Burroughs said that Penniston wasn't writing anything down in a notebook, and I find Burroughs more credible, meaning I no longer believe Penniston was keeping a notebook.

Originally posted by spacehoax1

It forced me to re-examine the FIRST witness testimonies and compare them down through the years. It ain't pretty. There's only so much one can take before having to scream, "Stop the ride, I want to get off!!!"

Those bastards!

It is not just this case, as I suspect you know, but many other of the "classics" where the story of some key individual has changed in an extraordinary direction. Often the "revelation" takes place around the time of some TV-special on the case The 1968 Minot AFB case comes to mind.

Nothing better than going into the vaults of ATS to read up on one of the top UFO incidents of all time. Still a great read even in 2013 OP

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No...the place where the coordinates lead to is called Hy Brasil. Not the country Brazil.

Hy Brasil

Originally posted by TheToastmanCometh
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No...the place where the coordinates lead to is called Hy Brasil. Not the country Brazil.

Hy Brasil

Thanks for the clarification, however, the problem with Penniston's credibility remains.

Originally posted by cripmeister
It is not just this case, as I suspect you know, but many other of the "classics" where the story of some key individual has changed in an extraordinary direction.

It happens a lot. It happened in the The BOAC Labrador sighting of June 29, 1954 :

This seems to prove rather conclusively that the climbing of the objects from below cloud over the St Lawrence was a later embroidery by Capt. HOWARD.

They don't accuse the captain of lying but simply mis-remembering in his later account, and that's also almost certainly what happened also in the Japan Airlines case over Alaska where Capt. Terauchi's account a month after the incident misremembered the sequence of his plane's maneuvers, as compared to the air traffic control log of his plane's transponder signal.

So the mis-remembering can even be unintentional, though in the case of Penniston, I doubt that's the case.

The best testimony is right after the incident, and there is some good testimony right after and even during the incident in this case (Halt's recording).

I don't know if this has been posted yet but it may be new to some people here, from Robert Hastings excellent website. This incident did not neccessarily occur on the same day or at the same time as the incident in question here, however it is very interesting and possibly related.

www.ufohastings.com...

side from persons reporting UFO incursions at the Weapons Storage Area, I have also interviewed the two USAF air traffic controllers who were on duty during the period of the UFO activity. James H. Carey and Ivan "Ike" R. Barker, now belatedly admit to tracking an unidentified target on radar at the Bentwaters Air Traffic Control Tower one night—sometime between December 26, 1980, and January 1, 1981—as they worked an extended holiday schedule. This is the first time the now-retired controllers' testimony has been published. Jim Carey told me: "At the time, I was a tech sergeant, an air traffic controller with the 2164th Communications Squadron. The other controller was named Ike Barker. A major named --- ----- was also there. I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o'clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight."

And there was a visual on it. When it hovered, I saw it out the window. It was basket ball-shaped, and had sort of an orangish glow. Not bright orange, uh, sort of dim, maybe like the full moon would look behind a thin layer of clouds. There seemed to be something across the center of it, lighter-colored shapes like—don't laugh—like portholes or windows, or even lights, in a row left to right, across its center. Maybe six or eight of them. They were stationary, not moving across the object. But it seemed spherical, not flat like a flying saucer. I couldn't hear any noise. It wasn't huge, but I think it was bigger than an airplane. I would say it was maybe twice the size of an F-111. Now, there's a water tower at Bentwaters. If you were in the air traffic tower, facing the runway, the tower is almost behind you. [From my vantage point] the object was directly over top of the water tower, or just past it. The object [appeared] larger, maybe twice as large, as the tank on the water tower. It stopped in mid-air for a few seconds, probably 500-feet, uh, maybe a 1000-feet above the tower, then it left. I didn't see it turn, uh, rotate or anything like that before leaving. But what impressed me most was the speed this thing had. I have never seen anything so fast in my life! It was zoom, gone! I would say the object was slightly higher than traffic pattern altitude. As soon as it left, I had Jim get on the phone to the controllers at the Woodbridge tower. He was patched through by the GCA (Ground Control Approach) radar unit. A British civilian at the tower said, "No, we didn't [track] it. We weren't manning the scopes. We're in the break room." That tower was manned by Air Force controllers too but, like us, had a British civilian working there. He's the guy Jim spoke with.