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

They made a video on his interrogation? Don't suppose you could link me to that?

a reply to: clt1994

There is no actual video of the interrogation (well not that I know of!).

I was joking as Rendlesham goes round and round in circles to be honest and gets very frustrating trying to make sense of it all. I'm not really giving it my top priority at the moment.

For all we know Jim P may have got ideas from AFOS (A Flock of Seagulls) early 1980s retro Sci-Fi video with the lyrics....

I hear voices but there's no one there
You speak to me in another language
Computer says it's a binary code
It's such a pity, I can't understand it..........

And Penniston does mention bits of the interrogation in his hypnosis session.




If you are interested in exploring it further then all I can say is go back over the thread and there are still links to podcasts, videos and weblinks for further information if you want to know more.

You can even glance through books like "You Can't Tell the People - Georgina Bruni" on Google Books for free. There is a search facility provided as well for keywords.

Here is another issue maybe someone can help me with:

Penniston said (in the Nat Geo Doc.) that as he circled the craft that was in the woods he took notes. One of his notes was "no apparent landing gear".
But then either Penniston or the other main guy said the next day he went out and took plaster impressions of the landing crafts tripods.
He was referring to that same craft, triangle, came in low about waist high and Penniston walked around it and touched it.
So no landing gear but tripod landing gear marks the next day?? Seems like something you would remember. Even if you went out the next day to look for landing marks you would arrive on scene and say "oh yeah, no landing gear!".
He said he looked under it, and it was bright so you wouldn't miss landing gear. So this seems really sketchy.

a reply to: joelr

Surprised you didn't spot the answer as it's already in the thread.

It's only 36 pages long for god sake!



www.abovetopsecret.com...

" Captain Verrano and Major Drury had questioned the pair (Burroughs & Penniston) after they returned from the incident. They then ordered Burroughs and Penniston to rendezvous with them at the landing site....."

A picture of which is below.



Penniston's story of making the plaster casts undetected is another very dubious part of the story as well.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: joelr

Surprised you didn't spot the answer as it's already in the thread.

It's only 36 pages long for god sake!

Yeah, I skipped some pages

But I read it from your link onwards, mostly, and saw the other problems with the plaster cast thing. But I didn't see anyone calling him out on why he said there was no landing gear and then switched it around a day or so later.

I did notice some skepticism about Penniston even actually getting that close to the craft. So maybe he just jumped on the bandwagon. When I saw that interview where he revealed the binary code I was like "Oh no you did not just say that". I thought maybe he was adding fake stuff to keep the interviews going which is a source of income.
Or a tv show producer contacted him with an "idea" to get viewers watching.

Imagine you're a producer of a tv show that airs mysterious stuff like ufo encounters, and you're making good money but your boss is like "C'mon dude, make some more good shows, get me ratings, what am I paying you big $ for!?".
And you have a huge mortgage, Ferrari, and hot girlfriend who wants to go to Hawaii 3x per year.

You find a popular ufo case and start feeling around for who's up for cashing in.


But anyway, he said no landing gear but then he found landing gear marks? Another weird thing is he did say no landing gear but he didn't say it landed on the ground did he? He didn't say if it was hovering (which would have been a huge thing!) or actually touching the ground?
It seems like you would notice if it was on the ground, hovering or sitting on a tripod but I don't ever recall him saying which it was?

When I first listened to his description as he walked around it I was immediately thinking "what the hell is it doing, is it hovering? Is it on the ground? Why aren't you saying?" Because that would make a big difference.

And now for something completely different...........


The infamous lighthouse at Orfordness that forms part of the Rendlesham debunkers explanation for a UFO is in danger of disappearing altogether.

Orfordness lighthouse 'perilously' close to falling into sea

A lighthouse is "perilously close" to falling into the sea after being exposed by coastal erosion, a charity trust has warned.

The Orfordness lighthouse, in Suffolk, is 10m (32ft) from the sea after the gap halved over the past four years. ....

Nicholas Gold, of the Orfordness Lighthouse Trust, said a £10,000 appeal had been set up for urgent repairs.

Storms forecast for this week pose a "real risk" of causing "significant damage" to the lighthouse, he said.

The trust said strong winds and high tides had eroded the shore around the Grade II-listed building, built in 1792.

"If the work is not carried out in the next few weeks, the lighthouse will, in all likelihood, not be standing in a year's time," said Mr Gold.

"It's perilously close to falling in the sea."........

Source : BBC

The lighthouse has been fully decommissioned and was commemorated by 80s synth guru Thomas Dolby in his recent film "The invisible lighthouse" which formed part of his 2013 tour.



The US version also includes a cameo by a certain Deputy Base Commander)



Full story : BBC



======================================

If anyone wants to now explore more theories about the Rendlesham UFO then ctj83 has authored an interesting thread :

Rendlesham Forest: Radiation Injuries & Causes

Which is well worth taking a look at.

New interview with Nick Pope (from a radio program aired on 11/01/2016 in the West Midlands):
www.youtube.com...

Nick is bound by the UK Official Secrets Act. By his own admission, he has deliberately "down-played" the subject and "played the part line" within the MoD. Furthermore, Peter Robbins' book 'Deliberate Deception' asked some pertinent questions of Nick's intentions amid criticisms of the book 'Encounter in Rendlesham', but Nick does not respond in the interview.

Can Nick be trusted? IMHO, if Nick cannot talk candidly about the nuclear capabilities of the base, then there's certainly no way he's going to mention E.T., or E.T. intervention (if this indeed either is/was the case) in light of 'just how close we came to Armageddon':

Suffice to say, yes, eh-um, these bases were critically important to the NATO military alliance and at a time where we perhaps came closer than most people realise to a third World War and I . . . the full story of the whole relationship between the Soviet Union and Poland and, you know, just how close we came to Armageddon."

I remember Gary Heseltine and Larry Warren remarking upon the volatility in Eastern Europe, and its possible influence with the event, but Nick really seems to take it to a new level with the mere mention of 'Armageddon'!

On the MoD:

A subject which for years the MoD had told Parliament and the media was of very little interest and then it transpired, oh by the way, and the number stands at about 52,000 pages of documentation on all of this. Some of which was at very high levels of classification like 'Secret UK Eyes only' for example.

... There will be a final batch [document release] some time in 2016 at a time yet to be announced. They said they that they finished it in June 2013, and then there was a slight, 'oh whoops we've forgotten some files' and the've dug up 18 more.

What happened?

Q. What do you think happened back then?

A. I can tell you what it wasn't. It wasn't a lighthouse. It wasn't a—a hoax; a prank. It wasn't a secret prototype spyplane, or drone, or anything like that. ... this event is unexplained. Unexplained means unexplained ... it is a genuine mystery.

Official cover-up?

Q. They [Burroughs, Penniston, among others] believe this was a cover-up from the beginning. Do you agree with that?

A. Yes. I suppose in a sense I played a part in that. When I worked at the MOD I had to follow the party line n saying that these events were 'of no defence significance'. ... more a question of downplaying this thing. ... Franky, it's clear from the MoD own files and documents that we thought this was extremely interesting and significant.

a reply to: Defragmentor

Yep I don't understand his continued stance of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear ordnance at the Twin Bases.

Michael Portillo, former UK Secretary of State for Defence between July 1995 & May 1997 revealed it recently on a TV show.



You can hear it from the man himself around 15:30 into this video. The Rendlesham section starts about 14 mins in.

Now I would think that a government minister in charge of the whole MoD would be subject to any official secrets act that Nick Pope would be. So what's the problem confirming something that is pretty much a known fact about a base that has been decommissioned because the Cold War is long over?

Another thing worth checking out might be Nick's father and the position he held in the UK Civil Service

*grinning, shaking head* And Portillo doesn't even flinch. Incredible.

originally posted by: Defragmentor
*grinning, shaking head* And Portillo doesn't even flinch. Incredible.

I have no problem with Nick Pope personally as he's done a lot to soften the attitudes towards the ufo topic and good luck to him in his new career.

But I know some people read this forum who host alternative talk radio and TV shows and I wish one of them would put it straight to him and ask why he won't talk about the 'nukes' at Bentwaters when the Minister of Defence (whilst Nick was one of his employees) has already confirmed it?

Yes. Hopefully someone does press him on that, and also on the criticisms levelled by Peter Robbins.

Very interesting to go slightly OT and read up on some history of that time and just how volatile the situation was.

The Polish Crisis of 1980-1981 began with a wave of strikes across Poland and the formation of the first independent labour union in a Soviet bloc country, called Solidarity. The crisis ended with the imposition of martial law in December 1981.

An assessment report from NATO SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, at the time one General Bernard W. Rogers) highlighted the state of readiness of the Soviet forces (dated 23 December 1980, NATO Archives)
www.nato.int...

7, (NS) ASSESSMENT:
ASSESS THAT THE SOVIETS REMAIN AT AN ADVANCED STATE OF COMBAT READINESS IN AND AROUND POLAND. THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO INTERVENE MILITARILY WITH AN INITIAL FORCE OF UP TO 25 DIVISIONS WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING, SUPPORTED BY A SECOND ECHELON AT 36/48 HOURS NOTICE TO MOVE.

HOWEVER, BEFORE SUCH A MOVE, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE SOME LEAD TIME WITH A NUMBER OF INDICATORS STEMMING FROM WITHIN POLAND ITSELF AND TIED TO THE DOMESTIC SCENE. THESE INDICATORS ARE CURRENTLY NOT PRESENT THANKS TO A RELATIVE LESSENING OF TENSION, ALTHOUGH THE INTERNAL POLISH SITUATION STILL REMAINS TENSE AND WILL CONTINUE TO REFLECT THE CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN POLISH SOCIETY DURING THE COMING 14 DAYS AT LEAST.

WE FEEL THAT THE EXAMINATION OF THESE INTERNAL INDICATORS REMAINS OUR BEST WAY OF ANALYSING SOVIET INTENTIONS DURING THE CRITICAL PERIOD, AS THEY ARE THE VERY FACTORS THAT THE SOVIETS THEMSELVES WILL USE TO MAKE AN INTERVENTION DECISION, UNLESS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN. THIS PRESENT LACK OF CONFRONTATION ON THE POLISH DOMESTIC SCENE MAY LEAD TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROSPECT OF IMMEDIATE SOVIET MILITARY INTERVENTION HAS RECEDED. WE NOW ASSESS THAT WE COULD HAVE 24 TO 48 HOURS WARNING BASED ON THE INTERNAL SITUATION OF ANY IMPENDING SOVIET INTERVENTION, UNLESS THE DECISION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE BY THE SOVIETS TO INTERVENE AT A TIME AND SITUATION OF THEIR CHOOSING IN WHICH CASE WE COULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO WARNING.

Ryszard Kukliński, a Polish colonel and Cold War spy for NATO, passed top secret Warsaw Pact documents to the CIA between 1972 and 1981. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the following source but suddenly Armageddon doesn’t seem quite an outcry:
www.videofact.com...

According to the Soviet plans, two of the three Polish armies were to cross Germany to invade Holland, Belgium and France. The remaining third was to attack and conquer Denmark. Colonel Kuklinski realized that being outnumbered in the arsenal of conventional weapons, the West would have no choice but to resort to nuclear warheads. In his decision to expose Soviet strategic plans to the West, he believed he was giving NATO a chance to answer Soviet attacks without a nuclear offensive on Polish communication targets.

Today, it has been confirmed that Soviet generals lied when they argued they had only planned a conventional war in Europe. Documents confirming the USSR's readiness to go into a nuclear war have been found in the East Germany's archives. The Soviets had planned to launch about 60 nuclear weapons, each of them 10 times as powerful as the one the U.S. had dropped on Hiroshima.

Ryszard Kuklinski certainly passed documents on (Wikipedia reports up to 35,000 pages between 1972 and 1981). Here’s just one such CIA release from December 1980 – Report Warning of Soviet intervention (published in CWIHP Bulletin 11, originally in Polish):
digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org...

At a meeting with the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, in accordance with orders from Gen. Jaruzelski's Defense Ministry, Gen. Hupalowski and Col. Puchala endorsed a plan to admit into Poland (under the pretext of maneuvers) the Soviet Army (SA), the National People's Army of the GDR (NVA), and the Czechoslovak People's Army (CLA). Documents and reproduced portions of the plans [for joint intervention] were presented to show that the following forces are to be sent into Poland: three armies comprising 15 SA divisions, one army comprising two CLA divisions, and the staff of one army and one division from the NVA. In total, the intervening group initially will consist of 18 divisions.

a reply to: Defragmentor

Yes I remember those days I was still a schoolboy back then. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan the Xmas before (1979). CND was resurgent once again and they were turbulent political times. Tensions were high and I remember Thatcher applauding a Polish Union Leader, Lech Walesa, for standing up against the evil communist Soviets. Oh! the irony of it all.

To be honest I never actually felt like the world was about to end at the time. The world seemed a much smaller place back then.

But (to bring it all back on track) Woodbridge and Bentwaters were definitely on alert as 1980 drew to a close



Pic courtesy of Deliberate Deception Pt 5. - Peter Robbins


Sadly the world doesn't feel any safer 3 decades later.

Is there any known opinion from the Soviets expressed about the RFI?

a reply to: ctj83

It's very difficult to find anything from the Soviets on UFOs in the West. I am not sure you will find an 'official' Politburo opinion on Roswell never mind Rendlesham.

However............

You, and other followers of this case, may find these interviews interesting. The show is hosted by none other than John Burroughs along with Linda Moulton Howe.

Chuck De Caro, Former CNN Special Assignments Reporter talks about his work on the case for CNN and some very interesting things that may or may not be linked to the case. Chuck's report is 30 years old now but was possibly the first English language documentary on the case : CNN Special Assignment: UFO The Bentwaters Incidents



Jenny Randles, Dot Street and Brenda Butler, Co-Authors, Sky Crash The 3 ladies who investigated the case before anyone else in the early 1980s and wrote a book about it all. It's very rare nowadays to hear from any of them. This gives an insight into what the local people of East Anglia were talking about in the days that followed the incident.



Larry Warren & Peter Robbins, Authors of Left At East Gate Larry talks through the events of the third night with John in perhaps more detail than we've ever heard before.



Ray Boeche, Th.D., early investigator of RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge Mystery

Not heard this one yet. But Ray did a lot of research on the case during the 1980s.


John Burroughs has done a great job here of getting different people to talk about the case. Ones who you wouldn't normally hear from on a talk radio show.

a reply to: mirageman

Very interesting MM, I'm still working my way through these. I know many people dismiss the third night but my gut instinct is that there is a core of truth here.

Another little tidbit of information that I came across a long while ago when trying to see if there was any activity at nearby Sizewell nuclear power stations in regards to the incident.




The event was recorded in an old edition of the Fortean Time and mentions a green/yellow mass floating onto the land from the sea near Sizewell. The witness noticed a warm feeling and tingling of the skin.

Sizewell is around 15 miles from Rendlesham.



There are other mentions from 1977 in Somerset and a case from 1904 were the SS Mohican crew reported a strange localised mist near the Delaware Breakwater. The conditions reported were sudden calm, stillness and then electrical like effects on the environment.

Whether this all fits in with Rendlesham, I don't know, but there were reports of a strange localised mist and static electrical effects in the atmosphere on the first and third nights,

a reply to: mirageman

The static mist is one of those odd details, that seems almost too strange to be fictitious. I've spent the past week looking at Hessdalen, as a way of ruling in or out some natural plasma phenomena. So far, there seems little to no connection with the RFI.

Was the static mist only present for the third night encounter?

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

Was the static mist only present for the third night encounter?

As far as I recall the static mist was reported by Larry Warren and Adrian Bustinza on the third night. Although Colonel Halt reported something moving through the trees( as documented on the Halt Tape.)

The static effects may have been reported on the other nights but I am not aware of any reports of a mist.

a reply to: mirageman

I've just completed the final podcast and it is probably the most interesting. Ray discusses two major topics. The first is Senator Exxon's investigation. The second is essentially about frequencies and non ionising RF. This discussion ranges from radar being at the center of the phenomena, to Terrahertz and ELF technologies. There is also some discussion of holography, the holonomic mind and Fourier transforms.

a reply to: ctj83

I haven't caught up with it as yet.

I also spotted another one that you might want to hear with Nick Pope.



Might be back at the weekend once I've listened to all the shows.