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

ianrid

mirageman

reply to post by ianrid
And if this 'craft' or indeed crafts (if they ever existed) had been around for a few days is it not possible that something could have landed in a number of locations in the forest?

I think you are getting into multiplication of hypotheses now.

Yes I am dealing with a multiple of hypotheses. Because this case is not a clear cut one. Well at least not to me.

The plaster cast ,according to sceptics, is surely taken from an animal scraping (of which there could be hundreds of them in the area). In which case what is the point of even considering the plaster cast as evidence?

However - if it was a cast of something which landed, as Penniston claims, then this craft continued to return for at least a couple of days. Where did it go between Christmas night and Halt's night out?

It couldn't have stayed in the same place as the airmen said it took off and vanished, and the police found no trace of it on Boxing Day 1980.

So it's either a cast of :

i) One of a multitude of animal scrapings in Rendlesham Forest.
ii) A genuine craft landing of unknown origin that could possibly have landed more than once in Rendlesham Forest.
iii) Multiple craft that may have landed on more than one occasion in Rendlesham forest.


I will refer you to your own comments on your own website:

"

...........there is only one high-tech civilization in the Galaxy at present, and we are it.

www.ianridpath.com...

A lot of people will disagree with that thought. But even that view still leaves a number of possibilities in this case.

Of which "The Lying, the Wisp and the Lighthouse" are just part of it.

reply to post by Guest101

Well, something strange WAS going on.

Halt was called in at 01:00 because some of his armed men had been running out of the woods, scared by a strange arrangement of lights in a yellow ground fog with enough static in the air to make the hair below their hats stand up.

Halt was obviously caught up in the UFO story while he was out there. Even identifying rational things i.e.: forester tree marks, animal scrapings, and haphazard connect-the-dots triangular landing area, as "strange" (his word by the way). All of which were not strange. There was no rational thinking to start off with as proven by these statements.
===================================================================

Halt himself is NOT impressed by the indentations (‘is that all the bigger they are?’).

He identified 3 indentations in the ground.
He took radiation readings from these spots.
He identified a blast area in the center of these indentations.
He took photographs of these indentations.

HALT: We found a small blast – what looks like a blasted or scruffed-up area here. We’re getting very positive readings. Let’s see, is that near the centre?

He clearly thought something "strange" was there and was not rationally thinking it through.
===================================================================

He also does NOT make a big deal about the abrasions on the tree (‘it looks like it may be old’).

You leave out the rest of his quote:

HALT: There’s a round abrasion on the tree about three and a half, four inches in diameter...it looks like it might be old, but, er...strange, there’s a crystalline...pine sap that has come out that fast. You say there was other trees here that are damaged in a similar fashion?

Also further on:

HALT: Let me see that....that’s got a funny...that’s... You’re right about the abrasion. I’ve never seen a tree that’s er...
... never seen a pine tree that’s been damaged react that fast.
.
HALT: Have them cut it off, and include some of that sap and all...is between indentation two and three on a pine tree about five feet away, about three and a half feet off the ground.
.
HALT: You’re getting readings on the tree you’re taking samples from on the side facing the suspected landing site.
.
HALT: Same place where the spot is, we’re getting a heat...
.
HALT: Three trees in the area, immediately adjacent to the site, within ten feet of the suspected landing site, we’re picking up heat reflection off the trees.

And he continues on further about the trees.
Clearly thinking something strange had happened there, when in fact nothing strange did.

He should have searched the area for other marks on the trees and he did not.
He should have looked elsewhere on the ground for other mussed up pine needles and sand, but he did not. He stayed focused on the assumed landing site taking radiation readings, photographs, and discussing it. Not rationalizing anything.

It again showed his mindset and a prelude to mis-identification of the lighthouse beam.

ianrid
Not heat. The starscope was an image intensifier, not an infrared device, so it was simply amplifying small differences in brightness.

Image intensifier tubes are sensitive to a wide range of wavelengths, including near IR.
The first generation had both suitable infra-red sensitivity and visible spectrum amplification to be useful militarily. Second generation image intensifiers use the same photocathode as the first generation tubes but provided extended red response and reduced blue response.

So like Halt said on the tape, the trees and the blasted area were emitting ‘heat or some kind of energy’.

Halt did a very decent job and surely would have been able to identify a lighthouse over a several hour period (a few minutes would have been sufficient).

Unfortunately we do not have enough data to determine exactly what he observed, so it remains an unknown.

Some people just cannot deal with that.

mirageman
However - if it was a cast of something which landed, as Penniston claims, then this craft continued to return for at least a couple of days. Where did it go between Christmas night and Halt's night out?

It might be worth stating an obvious point that often goes unremarked: other than on the first night, nothing was seen to descend into the forest. And as we know, the sighting on the first night coincided with the 3am fireball, and we also know that fireballs are a common source of UFO reports. On the subsequent nights, when there were no fireballs, nothing was seen to descend.

What’s more, on none of the nights was anything seen to take off. I know that Penniston claims that it did, but he is the only one. Master Sergeant Chandler, who was stationed at the edge of the forest on Night One to act as a radio relay between Penniston and Security Control, says he saw nothing during the time he was out there. He would have been well placed to see anything take off from among the trees, had there been anything there to do so.

Burroughs simply says it receded horizontally in front of them, which is consistent with them following a light that was further off than they originally thought. Just as in Halt's case two nights later.

reply to post by Guest101

So what does looking at axe cuts on the trees have to do with UFOs?

Number 7 on the list of the TOP 10 UFO Government Whistleblowers of All Time and which he in my opinion rightly earned is Larry Warren.
Starting at 07:48 in this video.

reply to post by mirageman

So it's either a cast of :

i) One of a multitude of animal scrapings in Rendlesham Forest.
ii) A genuine craft landing of unknown origin that could possibly have landed more than once in Rendlesham Forest.

is there any way to distinguish from the two?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


LOL! Well how could one know indeed? Unless you were there at the time the depressions were created. It could of course be tested by making a plaster cast from a known animal scraping.

How likely is it that animal scrapes would be randomly placed or made in a triangle equal distances apart?

reply to post by ianrid

You have a very sharp and exceptional mind. I respect that. But, imo, your bias is set in stone and, as such, you piss on the very precepts you claim to hold dear. The first time I came across your work I basically bought it. A more penetrating second look, however, showed the holes in your theory.

There's likely something deeper here than some soldiers freaking themselves out. I, too, believe it's explainable. Just not with skeptical gymnastics that are only partially satisfying as to the rules of evidence.

Bravo for your work. It's exceptional as far as the skeptic side goes, but our host mirageman seems much more formidable in vetting the issues and keeping an admirable open-mindedness at the same time. ZetaRediculian gets props, too, for considering the open questions that you fail to address even though he basically agrees with you.

This thread is one of the best I've ever enjoyed here. Most everyone has done an excellent job of trying to penetrate this enduring mystery.

ianrid

..................

What’s more, on none of the nights was anything seen to take off. I know that Penniston claims that it did, but he is the only one........

Not strictly true as Gerry Harris, a civilian witness, claims to have seen something ascending from the forest and disappear in a flash on the first night.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even if you dismiss him as as simple yokel having enjoyed a bit too much Christmas spirit things do happen without anyone being there to see it.

reply to post by The GUT


Totally agree GUT. The sceptical view is very important to any case of this sort. The conclusion that if "we can't explain it it must be aliens" is a common one ,and often misguided one in this field. But it's also important to keep an open mind.

There is a growing acceptance with the discovery of exo-planets that we aren't alone in the universe. So it is a possibility that someone out there has maybe once or twice been down here. We can speculate on that for a long time.

But this thread did provide an outlet for me to re-discover a collection of information I've collected on the case and put it out for debate and others to air their views. I'm glad that Steve La Plume was able to add his thoughts and Mr Ridpath and others have all made this a good debate. We may never agree nor solve this case but it's been a very interesting debate.

Still one or two more points to go through before putting this thread to bed.

mirageman
Not strictly true as Gerry Harris, a civilian witness, claims to have seen something ascending from the forest and disappear in a flash on the first night.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even if you dismiss him as as simple yokel having enjoyed a bit too much Christmas spirit things do happen without anyone being there to see it.

Larry Fawcett interviewed Greg Battram; the transcript is in LEAG:

Battram: "we were driving around on Woodbridge base on a perimeter control, and we saw some lights up in the sky, and it looked a lot different from any other aircraft we had ever seen.
We watched them for a while and then they disappeared .. in a clearing of a forest and that’s when we saw the object or whatever. "

So Battram and his patrol did see lights in the sky that night.

Later that night, Englund and a team arrived at the site from which Battram and his patrol just came back (they got scared, mainly because of the static). Battram was sent back to the base while Englund took over. Bustinza and Warren may have been with him. Light-alls were installed and Halt was called in. Thay took him to the Battram site.

mirageman
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

This case is so complicated that even some of the witnesses are not sure what happened.

I agree mirageman, when you take everything in consideration that has being done and still is being done to damaging and ridicules this major UFO case as much as possible in order to keep it under wrap and all the years that have passed since it happened it is no wonder that it became so complicated.
And I expect it to become even more complicated after the book has coming out from Nick Pope, Jim Penniston and John Burroughs.
I am convinced that when you and I would being confronted with something we have never ever seen before and not even being able to believe what our eyes were seeing or even being able to describe it and being treated the way the witnesses were treated after the events it is in my view very understandable why even some of the witnesses are not sure what happened.

mirageman
In fact the blue lights and red lights are often ignored or always explained as people mistaking twinkling stars. Is there any astronomers' video of red and blue stars twinkling, that drip like molten metal etc. that could back this up? Perhaps there is and it would be interesting to see as it may well get very close to sealing this case off.

I have never seen such a film so far and assume I never will.

mirageman
Colonel Halt may well have mistaken the lighthouse/lightship once he got to the farmers field. However we are told that a group of USAF Personnel were out in the forest before him. What triggered their intervention? Were they simply curious or messing about off base and then got so spooked that they reported it to Halt? There was no fireball, meteor or satellite coming down on that night so what was going on to kick start things?

Then we have the more outlandish tales by Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza of a strange craft landing (we'll leave Jim Penniston out of this for now )which remain unexplained at present other than taking the easy option that they are liars.. I am unsure what Bustinza would have ever got out of going on the record when he has seldom given interviews. But he was there on the night Halt was out there and there is a massive gap in their stories.

These are all very interesting points you make.
Regarding the story of Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza with that strange craft landing and some beings it looks indeed as that there are no claims that the lighthouse could have played any part in it.
And there is evidence that seems to support that happening.

mirageman
As for Larry Warren, well his story could be a work of fiction but no one has ever proven it beyond doubt.

That’s correct, and that’s why that video from Georgina is so important, because of what she seems to have said about that in her lecture from the 20th Leeds Conference on 21-23 September 2001.

Georgina revealed that following a recent telephone conversation with Adrian Bustinza she felt she owed Larry Warren an apology as Adrian had confirmed to her Larry Warrens version of events as factual also confirming there WERE three alien beings with the craft.
Taking into account her treatment of Larry in her newly published book she was booed by many of the 800 audience.
Georgina continued that there were now five new written statements by USAF personnel confirming that the incident did occur as reported and these new witness reports confirm that they saw ALIEN HUMANOIDS inside the craft that landed in Rendlesham forest.”

There is also a very interesting interview available from Ray Boeche and Scott Colborn on April 15, 1984 with three witnesses called airman A, airman B and officer C.
In there is confirmed by the witnesses that at some stage, Base Commander Gordon Williams arrived at the site and that photographs and film were taken by both American and British personnel.
The alleged presence of alien beings was neither confirmed nor denied seeing them
I have no text from it but I will post the photos from the pages of that interview here, I hope it is readable.

Then you have that very interview Adrian had with Larry Fawcett in 1987.
www.therendleshamforestincident.com...

And when I read this interview and the things that are being said in that interview from Ray Boeche and Scott Colborn and what Georgina Bruni seems to have said in her lecture I strongly believe that the story from Larry and Adrian are clearly seem to deal with the same event.

Here is the first page with that interview from Ray Boeche and Scott Colborn on April 15, 1984 with three witnesses called airman A, airman B and officer C.

mirageman
How likely is it that animal scrapes would be randomly placed or made in a triangle equal distances apart?

Well, any three points make a triangle (unless they are in a straight line).
And it’s another Rendlesham myth that the marks at the supposed landing site were symmetrically placed. They weren’t.

Vince the forester actually sketched the triangle, with dimensions. Vince noted that the three sides were not equal and the three indentations themselves were not symmetrical either. You can see his sketch and read his comments here, along with photos of the site and the marks:
www.ianridpath.com...
As we can see from the photos, the marks look just like rabbit diggings, as concluded by the local police and Vince himself.

And here’s a video in which Vince expresses his disappointment when he first saw the landing site
www.youtube.com...

Guest101
So Battram and his patrol did see lights in the sky that night.

Of course, if we had a better description of these lights then we might have been able to tell what they were, too...

I'm sorry, but lights in the sky over the forest that they then lose sight of scarcely constitutes a "landing".

ianrid
And it’s another Rendlesham myth that the marks at the supposed landing site were symmetrically placed. They weren’t.

Vince the forester actually sketched the triangle, with dimensions. Vince noted that the three sides were not equal and the three indentations themselves were not symmetrical either. You can see his sketch and read his comments here, along with photos of the site and the marks:
www.ianridpath.com...
As we can see from the photos, the marks look just like rabbit diggings, as concluded by the local police and Vince himself.

Well, according to Vince’s drawing the indentations were approximately 2,5 meters apart. This is incorrect.
Maybe that’s because he was at the wrong location, which is not surprising since he only took a look six weeks after the incidents and wasn’t even sure he was at the right spot. No wonder he was disappointed.

In the documentary below, you can hear two witnesses who were at the right location, at the right time.
They tell that the landing marks were actually 12 feet apart (approximately 3,6 meters), and in a equidistant triangle.

Witness 1 at 05:20
Witness 2 at 06:36

Another Rendlesham myth that turns out to be true ..