The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

reply to post by gambon


I assumed you was talking about Halt because you firstly mentioned the recording, something which became known as the 'Halt tape', and because the discussion was about him in the first place.

So yes, Penniston did make notes something I know because I mentoned it in great detail in my opening posts.

what is the tape.......?it is verbal notes recorded on cassette tape.......

Sigh.

Halt was the one that made the tape, Not Penniston.

Hence the name...The Halt Tape.

You seem to have confused Penniston with Halt in your previous post.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Rising Against]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Feel free to join in as well man.

I'm sure you'll have something interesting and or enlightening to add as well.

reply to post by Rising Against


I think you are mistaken, You said what notes,I said the verbal notes on the tape , you said penniston made notes , Cabansag said he(penniston) definatly did not make notes.......


"Oh, and Halt didn't take Notes, Penniston did on the first night." .....rising against

As you can see , you Questioned HAlTS note taking , I answered pointing out that halts verbal tape recordings ARE NOTES...


ERGO the question is related to the answer....

"
So yes, Penniston did make notes something I know because I mentoned it in great detail in my opening posts.".....rising against

so because you mentioned it , it is now true , even though eyewitnesses deny penniston making notes during the incident?ot getting within 50 m of any "object"





[edit on 21-8-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by gambon]

Originally posted by Rising Against
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Feel free to join in as well man.
I'm sure you'll have something interesting and or enlightening to add as well.

Rising Against.....

Honestly.....

You guys have covered it so well, I don't know what I could add!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Some of the papers, relating to this case, are still classified and are not apart of the UK disclosure program.

Make of that, what you will..

And, Nick Pope himself, believes in the extraterritorial origin conclusion with this case too.

To the OP, I recommend you study the Berwyn Mountain Incident from 1974. Rather interesting.

Originally posted by infinite

I recommend you study the Berwyn Mountain Incident from 1974. Rather interesting.

Infinite.....

Berwyn might be an interesting subject for a thread, if you have time.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Worth noting, regarding this picture...




Some researchers have compared it to the Voyager golden record, including the idea of the triangle and two circles being a star map. It is a theory, but many skeptics fail to take note of the symbols.

Here is an interpretation, taken from another forum discussing this very topic

thepar acast.com

A previous post, in the above forum, makes this point

This could be the setup of their binary star system. A smaller star orbiting around a larger one. The orbit brings the smaller star fairly close to the larger one and the triangle is a unique signature describing the elliptical route of the smaller star.

And do you know what star system fits the above description?

Alpha Centauri

[edit on 22-8-2010 by infinite]

I think I mentioned before that those symbols look very much like ones on the 1803 Utsuro Bune ufo like craft from Japan.



Utsuro Bune



Rendlesham Forest





]

[edit on 22-8-2010 by avat178]

reply to post by Rising Against

Absolutely compelling data. This case has so much confirmation from officials trained to know what is a craft that is known and unknown, official confirmations from the base commander. I have read accounts of this by numerous sources, including several recent additions by Linda Howe and there is no possible way they can explain this away with mass psychology and lighthouses--its as laughable as the project Mogul explanation put out in the NY Times in 1997 (for Roswel). Its almost as if they ARE DISCLOSING this by the totally lame "attempts" to discredit the case. Great work.

reply to post by gambon


First off, my apologies for the slow reply, I've just been busy lately and I haven't had time to write all this out unfortunately.

Anyway.....

As you can see , you Questioned HAlTS note taking , I answered pointing out that halts verbal tape recordings ARE NOTES...

No, I haven't once questioned/doubted/struggled with the fact Halt made a tape, reason for that being the tape is probably the most famous thing to come out of this entire incident. However, you earlier threw me off when you mentioned Halt and you mentioned note taking as Penniston was the one responsible for the latter.

of course he made notes ....what is the tape.......?it is verbal notes recorded on cassette tape.......he makes a compass reading on the tape........look at the capsule..I think you have selective blindness regarding evidence...

Admittedly, I should have realized you was talking about the tape and not Pennistons Note taking instead as you specifically said ”Verbal Note”, obviously meaning tape but something just didn't seem to click I guess and it threw me off as I thought you was speaking of something you was not.

Just a simple mistake.

so because you mentioned it , it is now true , even though eyewitnesses deny penniston making notes during the incident?ot getting within 50 m of any "object"

I'm not sure how/why you have come to this conclusion to be perfectly honest, I was merely stating that I had previously mentioned it in detail in my opening posts, that's all.

I’m not and have never said anything like that “because I believe in something, that must mean it’s true” and I'm not sure why there is a need for sarcasm here but I'm assuming that's the best argument you could come up with to dispute the fact that he made notes.

If you could come up with a better one however, then I’d love to see it.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

You guys have covered it so well, I don't know what I could add!

That's cool, but IMO a new perspective will always be beneficial.

reply to post by infinite


Hey Infinite, I'm sure you will have already read this small article here but just in case you haven't you might find it interesting as Nick pope discusses Rendlesham.

What I find particularly interesting though is his view on the radiation readings, as according to him they do certainly show that something extraordinary did indeed happen here.

I'm curious what your opinion would be on all of this if you don’t mind me asking?

ETA FOR CLARIFICATION: I mean I'd like to hear your opinion on Nick pope's involvement here as well as your opinion on the Rendlesham forest incident as a whole if that's ok.

To the OP, I recommend you study the Berwyn Mountain Incident from 1974. Rather interesting.

Thanks for the tip! I probably will end up researching that case at some point in the future but time won't allow it right now unfortunately.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Rising Against]

reply to post by Rising Against


I am quite impressed by the readings, and Nick's honest assessment - in the face of oppposition.

But, however, the files that were not released are deeply interesting. When asking a source I had in the MOD about the remaing files, he hinted out a more detailed interaction and a possible signal being detected. But, I doubt we will ever know because some of the remaining evidence is under "national security".

NATO is said to be in possession of other evidence too.

A very well constructed thread to say the least and it covers the timeline about as well as any other I have seen on this case. However, since we all deal with extreme stresses differently, I do not think that casting aspersions upon ANYONE who was at the actual event simply due to a lack of de-classified documents, namely those on the 3rd night, is a bit judgemental and is tantamount to calling them liars. I don't know if you have ever been in a situation where it was so out of the ordinary that trying to explain it to another made you seem like a loon or liar, but it happens all the time in criminal investigations. regardless, it is a compelling case that we will probably NEVER know all of the facts to as long as the citizenry continue to allow our governments to conceal such data. In the end, it really is up to the mass populations, IF we can ever get enough of them together long enough to demand disclosure which I really do not see happening anytime soon unfortunately.

I have seen and read stuff on this before. They have a six part show on youtube with the military witnesses and reenactments of what happened that night... Thanks for posting there was so much more detail in this thread than the clips I watched!!!! * and flag!!!

www.youtube.com...

Hi Op and All,

That's the thing. It all happened and most all witnesses have come forward, of 1980/12 base security and Halt.
Frankly, Conrad slipped-up in allowing Halt to send off a (the Infamous)USAF Memo to MoD. That led people to see it under British FOIA.

Years later and to this day the events are ahuge-- big deal, and it should be ! In my opinion everything Ret. Stf Sgt Penniston's everything with this event, including his encounter with AFOSI.

Decoy

reply to post by scrtsxcgirl


Yeah, I posted a shorter version in the form of a 3 part YouTube video and I also posted the much longer 6 part version you're talking about towards the end of my opening posts as shown here.



It's an interesting video to say the least and definitely worth watching.

What a great put together read this is! Star & Flag worthy to say the least. It must have took you quite a while to do all the research and to put it all together in one easy to read thread.
The only thing I have to offer is that lets not forget these men at the base are "Air Force" people and therefor its a great probability that they know a flying object from a stationary Lighthouse.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Iwinder


I agree, but the scepticism for a lot of people (IMHO) is the fact that some of the men who were ‘highly involved’ (i.e. Burroughts, Penniston and so on..) were relatively new to the base and could have been unfamiliar with the lighthouse.

That being so it gives the believe that the lighthouse was in fact a more than plausible explanation for the strange lights that was seen by the men than a UFO for example.

When bringing Halt into the equation however the credibility drastically rises especially since he was well known to the base and in turn knew the base really really REALLY well himself. He would have more than certainly been familiar with the lighthouse and how it looks from the base and would have been able to tell if it was what they were seeing or not.

The lighthouse explanation really fails though, when considering the "encounter" with the object the men reported.

Also, I find it hard to believe in thinking that if this was the cause (lighthouse), they wouldn't have identified it afterwards in subsequent patrols, and then retracted the whole account....