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

originally posted by: Guest101

who quoted...

originally posted by: Sedonabird
....
"It is my opinion that Jim Penniston is a most reliable witness. During my conversations with him, he never changed his story always answered my questions intelligently"
....
Georgina Bruni, 'You Can't Tell the People.' 2002.

It's pertinent to consider Penniston's 'reliability', which Bruni appears to have been able to accept, in relation to his various accounts of where Cabansag was when he 'encountered' his 'craft'. Bruni, as you say, leads with the 'Penniston never changes his story' approach and goes with:

"He [Jim Penniston] instructed Cabansag to stay back at the vehicle to act as communications relay."

Georgina Bruni, You can’t tell the people, p 173

And this is, of course, what Penniston was wanting us to believe, up to the time of the Rayl interview (1997).

"At that point, I decided to station Airman Cabansag there as a radio link, so he stayed by the Jeep to serve as a communications relay. Airman Burroughs and I then headed on foot towards the tree line..."

- Penniston to Salley Rayl, 1997

Only, by the end of 1997, and more so into early 1998, Easton started releasing the original witness statements, in excerpts initially. And there, Chandler clearly identifies himself as the relay "between SSgt Penniston, myself, and CSC." Cabansag concurs, adding:

"CSC was not reading our transmissions very well, so we used MSgt Chandler as a go-between. He remained back at our vehicle."

- Cabansag, January 1981

So now Penniston's in a quandary. He wants Cabansag out of there, to reduce the witnesses to his episode with the 'craft', only now he's faced with evidence that Cabansag was not relay at the Jeep. So, he needs some other means to get him out of there. And so, by 2002 in an interview with Eric Stewart, we get:

STEWART: WHO WAS WITH YOU?

PENNISTON: The patrolman who was with me was John Burroughs. ...

STEW.: SO, IS HE THE ONLY ONE WITH YOU?

PENN.: Well, immediately next to me at 10 feet, yes. We, of course, we had another one [Cabansag] back about 100 meters and there were others back at a logging road. ...

This is not someone who "never changed his story" (and this is a trivial example), and nor is he, with certainly, a "reliable witness," of any sort.

What you get instead is the classic illusionist 'misdirection' trick, time and again. Here, he wants you to notice that he now no longer conflicts with Chandler as to who was stationed at the Jeep, but he hopes your focus on that 'correction' is tight enough that you miss that fact that Chandler is likewise clear about the fact that he was in direct contact with Penniston, with no-one in between.

Sigh...

Occam's Razor: If you can give an explanation that doesn't require the involvement of a leprechaun, then it's probably better than one that does.

a reply to: Shaqmeister

MM, can you point out to me where you're seeing this 'no longer seeing eye-to-eye'?

You will find that Burroughs and Penniston appeared on many TV and radio shows around the 2010 - mid 2014 period. There were some promotional appearances for their book together. But after that they never appear together again. They appear to have a number of differences over what caused John's injuries and whether Project Condign is significant or not. Probably a lot more.

John hosts his own radio show on KGRA : www.kgraradio.com...

You will notice that Penniston never appears on it. Even though the relationship is prickly with Charles Halt, Burroughs has had him on the show.

If you want to hear something yourself I suggest this podcast from August 2014 : link

Fast forward to about 45 mins in and you can hear them both put the boot into "Airman Burroughs".Halt especially declares how Burroughs has problems with “anger management”. Penniston now feels that Halt protected him by keeping him and Burroughs apart for so long and plays it like Halt's lapdog. Strange how the relationships continually shift and change between the guys always at the vanguard.

a reply to: Shaqmeister

Yeh he's full of shifting contradictions and always reacting to things like this thread as he tries to smooth and straighten his story out.



2:40 mins he claims he didn't know what he'd written was binary code and it "meant nothing to him".

But in the podcast I posted earlier about 15:00 mins in Penniston starts to describe what he knew of the binary codes. Around 17:20 he specifically states something like "Oh binary codes ..I mentioned that in hypnosis that’s when I made a connection......”

His hypnosis was in the mid-90s.

Reliable witness? I look forward to his rewriting of this piece of the story as well.

Burroughs also seems a bit perplexed at the number of (unseen audience) hands showing they knew what binary code was back in 1980. I did too and was just out of junior school.

originally posted by: mirageman
Yeh he's full of shifting contradictions and always reacting to things like this thread as he tries to smooth and straighten his story out.
...

Then there was the whole thing with Angelia Joiner, where he claimed that he knew all along what the message in the first six pages was, before it was decoded. And there's "it's Woodbridge," "No. It's Hy'Brasil."

Just so I understand you (above), are you saying that Penniston is somewhere "reacting to" this ATS thread? Or have I misunderstood you?

a reply to: Shaqmeister

The first picture is almost certainly based on primitive brush strokes, a covering of glass and an old fashioned film camera.



No leprechauns were harmed during the making of that painting.

a reply to: Shaqmeister

Penniston has proven reasonably adept at adapting his story long before this thread was created. But he does seem to follow what's going on in this thread and 'adjusts' as he feels necessary. It may not be obvious but it sometimes seems like his influence is present here as well

www.facebook.com...

........

If you want to hear something yourself I suggest this podcast from August 2014 : link

a reply to: mirageman

Just a little white lie part way through but it does not matter.

originally posted by: Tulpa
Not being critical here. Just wondering. If the beam did sweep all the way round (including inland), I imagine it would've been a giant pain for local motorists driving at night and getting dazzled.

UFO hunters had a look at it on their episode on RFI but as the lighthouse was no longer in use they couldn't test the theory, unfortunately.

I guess you're not very familiar with the case and apparently you don't remember what UFO hunters did on their show which was discussed on another thread on ATS that they told a big fat lie saying the lighthouse couldn't be seen from Rendlesham forest because of the shield as I recall.

Even if you disagree with Ian Ridpath, his website is still an excellent source of information like maps, photos, and technical data, including the specification that the shield on the lighthouse blocks less than a quarter of a circle. To block it from all views on land it would need to block something like half a circle. This video shows a very approximate depiction of the angle blocked as a yellow cone, so the light can't be seen from the town of Orford:




Note the label "Encounter Area" on the left is not in the yellow cone or even near it so the lighthouse light is not blocked from that area by the shield, but what does block the lighthouse light from some other potential viewing locations is the terrain. For example the lighthouse couldn't be seen from the East Gate which help explain why they weren't familiar with the lighthouse as some witnesses later falsely claimed they were. Halt was familiar with it but he was confused about the direction because it was in a different direction when viewed from the other base he transferred from, and the fact there was more than one lighthouse also apparently confused him. See the explanation below about "the notch".

Look at the pictures on Ian Ridpath's site of how narrow the shield is on the Orford side, only spanning three of the diamond-shaped panes:

www.ianridpath.com...

3: Lighthouse from the Orford side

The Orfordness lighthouse as seen from the side facing the town of Orford. The diamond-shaped window panes of the lantern room are filled in on this side to prevent the light shining directly into the town. However, the shield is notched and only three of the panes are filled in at the centre. In practice, the light still shone inland towards Rendlesham Forest, off to the right. See this short video by Adrian Frearson demonstrating the position of the blanked-off arc relative to the town and forest.

The video he's referring to is the same one embedded above.

The UFO Hunters episode was a disaster because it lied about the lighthouse not being visible from Rendlesham Forest, though as I said the terrain affects where it was visible in the forest. The place where it could be seen is called "The Notch":

As View 1 at the top of the page demonstrates, the Orfordness lighthouse is visible from the forest edge only through a notch between two stands of trees on the skyline. These trees are in fact on rising ground to the east of the Butley River. I have marked this Notch on the satellite view below. The eastern edge of Rendlesham Forest is about 3.5 km to the west, and the lighthouse about 4.5 km to the east. The lighthouse can be seen through the Notch from only a very limited area near the forest edge. This just happens to be the area in which the US airmen were standing when they reported seeing their flashing UFO almost in line with the farmhouse across the field to the east of them.

What was encountered in Rendlesham Forest over several nights in December 1980? - the 'Probability Argument'.

Consider the following scenario:

We learn of a large, unexplored area of the Amazon basin and decide to set out to catalogue all of the species of creature that live there. After several years of exploration, we return home and put together a report of our discoveries. In summary, we record that of the vast number of creatures encountered:

1. Sufficient information was available for 90% of the total encounters to be classified ('explained'). Owing to various factors, 10% of the total encounters were not able to be studied in sufficient detail to permit accurate classification;
2. Of the classified 90% of total encounters, 95% (85.5% of the total) turned out to be previously known species (i.e., 'explainable' in terms of existing knowledge);
3. The remaining 5% (4.5% of the total) of the classified 90% were new species which, however, are now classified and which extend our knowledge of the Amazonian creature population.

Aware of this statistic from our findings, we turn to thinking about the 10% of our total encounters with Amazonian creatures that did not lead to classification for whatever reason, and that remain 'unexplained'.

The 'Probability Argument' would then say that we should expect that, were sufficient data to have been available, this group would also have shown a 95%/5% split between previously known and new-to-science species.

To choose a random source, Georgina Bruni - in her book You Can't Tell the People - who says:

"According to the Ministry of Defence 90 per cent of UFO cases are eventually solved but that still leave 10 per cent that are not, and it is that 10 per cent which interests me."

Of course, the '90% solved' group are not variously solved - that is, 'explained'; they are all explained in terms of everyday, mundane, 'previously known' phenomena.

In fact, to state it clearly, of all reported UFO encounters:

1. Sufficient information is available for 90% of the total encounters to be classified ('explained');
2. Of the explained 90% of total encounters, 100% (90% of the total) turn out to be explained in terms of known, mundane phenomena (existing knowledge);
3. 0% (0% of the total) of the explained 90% involved new phenomena which extend our knowledge.

What, then, should we expect of the remaining 10% of the total number of reported UFO encounters?

a reply to: Shaqmeister

What, then, should we expect of the remaining 10% of the total number of reported UFO encounters?

Don't let it get to you. Perhaps venture out of this thread and see what else is out there on ATS as well?

Take a break from this soap opera for a while. Not long ago Warren's story was still unwinding. He eventually cracked under the pressure. Shortly Penniston's story will prove he's away with the pharaohs.

a reply to: tbchugs

a reply to: mirageman

I know what I wanted to say, but silence is sometimes best.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Baablacksheep

If Penniston has always told the truth then he has absolutely nothing to worry about. He will find it a 'hilarious' read from cover to cover, as his voice on here keeps telling us. If not well...we could speculate on what might happen.

I don't have anything else to add as everything being discussed has been discussed before.

I saw that ASCII was talked in other threads.
Steveywonders are the symbols drawn by Jim Penniston RFID related?
I was looking /reserching what they might mean.
I have come up with..
1. size and dimension symbol?
2. Data structure (ASCII AND BINARY) 1964
3. WI-FI or 1 satellite, 2 radars and the v is ground to air comm.
4. Vendor info. (collective clarifiication informaation.?
5. Remote sensing division or early version of the same?
www.gs1us.org...

originally posted by: steveywonders

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Baablacksheep

If Penniston has always told the truth then he has absolutely nothing to worry about. He will find it a 'hilarious' read from cover to cover, as his voice on here keeps telling us. If not well...we could speculate on what might happen.

I don't have anything else to add as everything being discussed has been discussed before.

I saw that ASCII was talked in other threads.
Steveywonders are the symbols drawn by Jim Penniston RFID related?
I was looking /reserching what they might mean.
I have come up with..
1. size and dimension symbol?
2. Data structure (ASCII AND BINARY) 1964
3. WI-FI or 1 satellite, 2 radars and the v is ground to air comm.
4. Vendor info. (collective clarifiication informaation.?
5. Remote sensing division or early version of the same?
www.gs1us.org...

Steveywonders is there a link between the OKM of old Oberkommando der Marine and German OKM of new?
Nazi Germany's Naval High Command and the highest administrative and command authority of the Kriegsmarine.
This collective led early reserch in electromagnetism and conduction. 'Magnetstromapparat/ Coler?
Navy research divisions? design, propulsion?
Is it coincidence that symbols are on NEW OKM device GPR? Remote sensing?

Is there a link?

originally posted by: mirageman
IN SUMMARY : RENDLESHAM FOREST GENESIS

This is a summary of the feature penned by veteran ufologist Jenny Randles in the Fortean Times from January of [2016] until May.

...

If you want to read the complete series for yourself then you will have to obtain the back issues yourself. It certainly opens a few more questions to RFI.

All five of the editions of FT covering this serialised article appear to be available for download from the Internet Archive Search, use subject to their terms and conditions, of course.

Duplicate posting. Removed.

My goodness, has Rendlesham finally died, or is there a storm brewing?