Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

a reply to: mirageman

In deed you did, it seems it was beyond their ability to comprehend that ATS is not FaceBook or SnapChat.

Thanks for trying, this is one of the best threads in UFOology we've had in a while.

originally posted by: DaveBowman
Tonight on Phenomenon Radio at KGRA John and Linda host Ronnie Dugdale and Brenda Butler.

Independent paranormal investigator Brenda Butler and colleague Ronnie Dugdale reveal the truth of where reporters Keith Beabey and Bob Smith got the information for their story that broke in the News Of The World on October 2nd 1983 with the headline “UFO LANDS IN SUFFOLK AND THAT’S OFFICIAL” .Using information taken from Brenda Butler , Dot Street and Jenny Randles archives we set the record straight for once and for all. Don’t miss this show .There will be some surprises along the way. The facts laid bare. Just how much did the British team receive from the News of the World and for what?

I caught part of the show and I think they said 12,000 pounds was split 6 ways and they gave 5 names and said the 6th was a police constable who didn't want to be named. To put that in perspective they said the 2000 pounds each was barely enough to cover expenses of the researchers who didn't really make a dime after expenses, though the constable didn't have any expenses. I wonder if the constable had something different to say than was in the police report but if he refuses to be identified it can't be confirmed.

They replayed a Brenda Butler interview where she said Halt was offered 5000 pounds for his story but he refused to give it for such a small amount of money, he wanted 25000 so he could send his daughter to college with the money, and she added that even for 25000 he probably wouldn't have told the real story, he would have made something up.

Brenda Butler's story seems to have more aliens than Halts tape, I searched her and came up with this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Ms Butler said she has visited the forest at least once a week for the last 30 years and has made regular contact with extra terrestrials.

"We've seen different beings in the forest," she said.

"We've seen the black cat, we've seen the little brown monks which float around, we've seen disks, we've seen the craft in the sky, we've seen shadow man, we've seen ghosts.

"We see all kinds of stuff in the forest."

Sounds like the forest is full of "extraterrestrials" even without any UFOs, according to Brenda Butler anyway.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Don't they call it fairy sight.
Once you have met the fairy folk and seen their world, the ability to see their realm can remain.
So someone who spent time stuck in the fairy dance might describe sights unseen by their friends beside them.

Blame falls on hallucination or weakness of mind in the witness.
Best not let on if you are likewise afflicted.

This seems to be a pattern with those little grey fellas too.
Once you see one, you see 'em everywhere......apparently.
I very nearly spent a hefty £ on a copy of Sky Crash through time.
Then I read the blurb about the more recent sightings of greys etc. Dropped it like a hot stone, I can tell you.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I can't seem to find mention of the show anywhere, just like the Jamie Havican one. Did they discuss witness statement discrepancies?

a reply to: mirageman

I brought up the Peter Robbins situation a few months ago. With recent developments, it seems more pertinent than ever.

In LEAG, there is a chapter where Warren, with Robbins, returns to Rendlesham forest. They see the same sort of lights flying through the trees. Lights that lift off the ground and go into the air, then return, and what looks like a farmhouse on fire.

What is later revealed is what they thought were police ahead, were actually some other form of life heading over to them.

I find Robbins likeable, trustworthy and honest. He's tried his best to fight Larry's corner. However, the crux of the matter has always been, did that incident happen? If not, I don't see why Peter would continue fighting this battle.

We are left with a near binary set of choices:

- Peter and Larry made up the incident and supposed audio recording for LEAG
- Peter was the subject of elaborate charade created by Warren and or another interested party. It was a theatrical setup

There really aren't a huge amount of alternatives here.

I'll end this post by commenting that Halt has said on and off the record several times that he believes Warren is being observed by the NSA. He's said this to illustrate that Warren had been messed with but until now I also assumed that this meant that Warren's experiences made him a target.

I now feel I've got admit I can no longer believe that. With the numerous examples posted of alleged memorabilia fraud, I'm quite certain any government agency would have had this over him years ago, if he had any state secrets.

The most likely conclusion I believe, is not that Warren is observed because he knows something important about RFI.

More binary choices:
- Halt lied about the NSA messing with Warren over the years to discredit a man he already feels is totally discredited.
- Halt is telling the truth, but no government agency would be observing him for what he knows.

Occams (Lite) Conclusion:

Halt has been telling the truth about Warren for years. This has been difficult because occasionally Warren has been able to miraculously pull up facts and evidence that Halt can't make sense of. According to the recent interview with Bustinza, Warren borrowed much of his story (and this has been claimed before.)

Peter Robbins already felt betrayed that Warren gave his photo of the craft to Bruni. Why would he keep up a pretence, with new books and commentary defending him and Warren?

So, did the Warren, Robbins encounter happen? I'd say so, but what Robbins and Larry saw was not what it appeared.

Summary:

- Halt has been correct for years about Warren
- Warren has interest from agencies but why if Halt is correct?
- Robbins is being honest but the event was not what it seemed?

Question

If Warren had little first had experience of the RFI what are the chances that him and Robbins would encounter the phenomena again? In my opinion, unlikely and considering Halts NSA statements regarding Warren, and the Memorabilia - could it be that the event has the same level of authenticity as Warren's memorabilia?

In Warren's defence, I don't see how he could pull off any sort of wide ranging hoax of the RFI in the forrest next to the base? I'll leave it to others to put together the elements I've covered and come to their own conclusions about is going on.

originally posted by: Tulpa
Blame falls on hallucination or weakness of mind in the witness.
Best not let on if you are likewise afflicted.

I see faces in lots of places but I haven't kept that to myself since I thought most people did, for example I see faces in these rocks and in this cardboard, and they look kind of shocked or surprised:


I can also see them in clouds or dark forests at night, but with the well-lit cardboard box it's easy to identify it as a case of pareidolia, not so easy in a dark forest at night. I think it's an evolutionary survival skill to see these things especially in a dark forest where if there's a wild animal that wants to eat you, if the shape of the face or animal is hard to discern your survival will be improved if you make the mistake of assuming it's a dangerous animal when it's not, so you can raise your club and be ready to defend yourself. If there's a shadowy beast really in the forest and you make the mistake of dismissing it, that's the kind of mistakes that evolution will weed out because people who made that type of error didn't survive to reproduce.

So I think some amount of pareidolia is an evolutionary trait that's built into most of us, but some people don't recognize pareidolia as such or may have not even heard that word and don't know what that is.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I can't seem to find mention of the show anywhere, just like the Jamie Havican one. Did they discuss witness statement discrepancies?

As I said I only caught a part of the show, a little over half of it, and they didn't discuss witness statement discrepancies of the actual event in the part I heard. They were discussing other discrepancies that seemed trivial to me about who said what about how much Halt got paid etc. I couldn't find much on the show either, not even ok KGRA's site, but I went to that site after 1am GMT and the show was playing then just as DaveBowman said it would be. I missed part of the beginning because I was trying to install an audio recorder so I could record the show, but it didn't work, maybe not compatible with my OS version or hardware. I couldn't listen to the whole show which is why I wanted to record it.

a reply to: ctj83

If you don't mind, could you go over this "It's a ma.." thing a bit more?

Of the various players involved with RFI, are any of them finishing that word?

I'm curious if the word is actually just "man".

If people are presuming to see some sort of craft / UFO, etc. then say they
came upon a "glowing man", then that would warrant an "oh my god".

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

It's a quote from Skycrash, at the point where the authors have met Halt etc. He tells them that one of the airmen climbed the craft and one spent three days in the wood hoping to connect with the phenomena.

They then leave. They connect with a whistleblower, who I believe is Penniston. He confirms what others have said, that there is a recording but it's been altered to give a certain impression.

Later, we find out that the tape is being played at dinner parties. According to an unnamed whistleblower (perhaps I missed the name)... Halt is supposed to say " It's a m(achine)" just as the tape cuts off. Odd isn't it that rumours of the tape would before the release, would involve that.

So - the "m(achine)" part came from Butler, Street or Randles. That is what is written in Skycrash, and I think the only way to get further clarity on this glaring oddity (why leak incorrectly about a tape that was unknown but would then... er, leak?).

Perhaps a drunk airman grabbed some fairy lights and went out into the woods

I'd say, although I can't figure it out, that it might be looking back at the transcript of Butlers interview with Halt in the mid nineties, where Butler asks

"What fell off an aircraft that had to be covered up?" Halt "No comment"

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its slightly more than fear as self defence or paradoleia.
What I'm referring to is that wherever the greys are concerned, its never usually a one-off thing.
Once you've had contact they seem to make themselves, or rather their contactee of choice, available whenever they please.

The parallels with old tales of 'The Good People' or fairies/faeries are quite remarkable.

Some people seem to have an uncanny ability to see what others do not.
Maybe I'm jealous.
I don't know.
I've heard if you've seen one grey, you've seen them all.

a reply to: mirageman

I replied to you last night but the post didn't go up. I think my wifi had a nervous breakdown after it realised we had to it a while for the next Game of Thrones.

No I am not running away. I have been on this forum for ten years under another nic, but mostly i just mooch about. I got into a lot of arguments ten years ago.. Not the best place for someone who only thinks they know what they are talking about and in fact knows/knew naff all. If it starts getting weird I will just bumble off, it is such a turn off. I do not have even one single cell in my being that has any inclination for a battle of pedantic semantics. The crap I have taken for even daring to have a brain fart on the matter. Sheesh.. All these people then tell me how rational they are and how they would know because they were in the forces once. Even one idiot telling me even a match head going off on base would cause an explosion! Riiiight. Only... None of it happened ON base. who cares about minor details like that though eh? lol!

I certainly don't have the definitives but I think I had an idea that is worth looking at.

a reply to: ctj83

I never read skycrash thanks for clarifying.

Kev

a reply to: Tulpa

You are spot on.

Kev

I see some people on the internet defending the binary codes by stating:
- The Arecibo message was binary, too.
- The coordinates are just pointing to the objects they refer to.

To those people I would say:

1.
The Arecibo message consisted of numbers and pictures, not ASCII codes. Numbers (i.e. counting) and visual shapes are universal, an English ASCII message is not. Jim wouldn’t know the difference, but scientists and engineers do (and immediately see the silliness of it all).

2.
A pair of coordinates with 6 decimals points to a 4 x 4 inch area.

Simply google ‘naxos-portara coordinates’, you’ll see that every website that gives coordinates for the naxos-portara will give different ones in the last 2-4 decimals. That is because they all point to some 4 x 4 inch area there, but the naxos-portara is a little bigger than 4 inches so all these coordinates point to a different 4 x 4 inch area.

We have five pairs of coordinates for macroscopic objects like the naxos-portara coming from the same website in 2009, and every one of them points to the same 4 x 4 inches as the ones Jim released in 2010.

'http://web.archive.org/web/20100304124647/http:/www.sacred-destinations.com/belize/caracol
'http://web.archive.org/web/20100224000451/http:/www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/giza-pyramids
'http://web.archive.org/web/20100326191942/http:/www.sacred-destinations.com/peru/nazca-lines
'http://web.archive.org/web/20100307013714/http:/www.sacred-destinations.com/china/tai-shan
'http://web.archive.org/web/20100301161418/http:/www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/naxos-portara

(The Nazca lines match but with one small error in the second decimal of the longitude, a 6 (00110110) instead of a 3 (00110011). The other 11 decimals of the Nazca coordinate pair match perfectly.)

So Jim’s coordinates were copied from www.sacred-destinations.com just before 2010 – there can be no doubt about that.

a reply to: ctj83

Recently saw Robbins at a conference. He came across as a very angry man. He hadn't any kind words for anyone but Warren. Very negative about Burroughs, Penniston, Pope and Halt. I wasn't the only one who was left with a negative impression. It was common talk at break .

a reply to: ctj83

And to everyone else who has posted recently.

Occams (Lite) Conclusion:

Halt has been telling the truth about Warren for years. This has been difficult because occasionally Warren has been able to miraculously pull up facts and evidence that Halt can't make sense of. According to the recent interview with Bustinza, Warren borrowed much of his story (and this has been claimed before.)

Peter Robbins already felt betrayed that Warren gave his photo of the craft to Bruni. Why would he keep up a pretence, with new books and commentary defending him and Warren?

So, did the Warren, Robbins encounter happen? I'd say so, but what Robbins and Larry saw was not what it appeared.

Summary:

- Halt has been correct for years about Warren
- Warren has interest from agencies but why if Halt is correct?
- Robbins is being honest but the event was not what it seemed?

I think we have to look at the early reference sources to the incident and question them against what we have now in the 21st century? Is the work of Randles. Street and Butler and others in the 1980s holding up that well today? How much of the story we have now is suspect and bogus?

I am not sure we will ever know what the real truth was behind this incident. I think we can chip away at it though and the fun is in the speculation sometimes.

Thanks to Guest101's uncovering of the co-ordinates I think we can say it is more than coincidence that they turn up in Penniston's notebook after they were first published on the web. As we have previously discussed other than Penniston's encounter in the forest the rest of his story has become bloated and enhanced by questionable embellishments. Even his notebook dated 27th Dec 1980. Which suggests he wrote it at a much later date to comply with the date on Halt's memo. Only it was wrong! We can argue whether some kind of hypnotism or mind control is at work. But does it matter. We know he was out there on Xmas night and Boxing Day 1980. He saw something for sure. But the glyphs, the binary and even those plaster casts are doubtful pieces of evidence.

Larry Warren's story, after hearing Bustinza tell his version, seems to have sidelined Larry to the periphery. So is there anything of value in his tales? Or should we just conclude that he's compressed other witnesses stories together with his many years ago. Perhaps in an effort to get the story out there and bring others out of the woodwork. But now he is facing credibility problems related to both the incident and elsewhere in this connected world we now live in?

Colonel Halt did a similar thing to Warren in my opinion. By compressing the elements of 3 nights into his memo and inserting incorrect dates it confused many for years. Is his tape the complete recording? What did he see in those four hours that are not recorded on that tape? What was he up to on the previous night when Tamplin broke down? Why did he do very little when out there despite the claims of UFOs beaming lights into his WSA?

Is John Burroughs key to all this? He after all was the one witness out there on two nights. His medical records are still classified. Was he exposed to something that has to be kept secret to this day?

Finally why do the #gang of four# squabble so much? Is it so people end up focusing on the wrong parts of the case?

I think we can say something unusual happened and that perhaps Penniston's now expanded story is a complete red herring. Warren's was a compilation of genuine events, hearsay and fabrication down the years. Halt has been deceptive since his memo and perhaps continues to be so to this day. Which leave John's story. He has mainly been consistent down the years with his story. Were his injuries sustained during the incident? If so then that leads us to what?

Still so many questions.

a reply to: mirageman

In symposium five of the dept of nuclear affairs and law enforcement standards agency project they discuss The Effects of Weather Sensitivity on Stressed Personnel.. Exposing them to varying degrees of ionised air to maximise performance during natural body clock dips. I think the clues to the stress on the body are in those pages. Ionised air has a bioelectric effect on blood cells which the heart has to process at a great rate, the exposure to that level of ionised blood.. how do ions dissipate? Right.. So they are doing their thing on living tissue.

Here is a link to the entire document of the fifth symposium of the role of behavioural sciences in physical security. Read The effects of weather sensitivity on stressed personnel.

drive.google.com...

a reply to: mirageman

I think we've to assume that whatever is being covered up, and whomever or whatever is the agency (in the loosest) sense, they are still at it.

After being a staunch believer in Warren and LEAG I'm forced to conclude some smaller role was expanded upon and then said agency helped out.

Skycrash. It had the virtue of being one of those earlier reports. I have reservations about much of it but even the wilder aspects may help identify the source of this agency.

Burroughs. If he's got any sort of solid proof of what happened or against the others, he'll need to use it fast. I get the feeling the clock is now ticking on this event.

Listening to another podcast I heard another RFI Airman talk about having 7 tumours in his thyroid that were of a type that should have taken much longer to develop.

Plasma entity, satellite, man in Christmas lights, UFO or early drone, this "suckers nuclear".

a reply to: Sedonabird

Really, I struggle to see what anyone could be mad at Burroughs for? He seems not to comment on others involvement beyond Penniston's.

a reply to: infomaniachousewife

I did bring that document up about 2 years ago in this very thread : clicky

But very few people have ever paid attention to it. Perhaps because it is over 200 pages in size and difficult to plough through? Definitely worth a 2nd look IMHO.

On an entirely different note I find it quite amusing how I gave this thread title a vague Beatles theme 2 and a half years ago. Then we see the Lennon/Warren photo appear. Now we don't.

a reply to: ctj83

I think we've to assume that whatever is being covered up, and whomever or whatever is the agency (in the loosest) sense, they are still at it.

Undoubtedly. It is also quite possible that one or more of the main witnesses has been in the pocket of this 'agency'.

Burroughs. If he's got any sort of solid proof of what happened or against the others, he'll need to use it fast. I get the feeling the clock is now ticking on this event.

I am sure he'd like to comment on that issue himself? But perhaps has to hold back for obvious reasons.

Listening to another podcast I heard another RFI Airman talk about having 7 tumours in his thyroid that were of a type that should have taken much longer to develop.

Was that Sgt. Stacy Smith who was stationed at the East Gate?