It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 38
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:50 PM
a reply to: mirageman

MM, thanks for those podcast, there was an immense amount of good content there. Several things stood out to me:

- Dot Street & Brenda Butler, I struggled to get much out what they said beyond the following. That a number of wildly different narratives were being circulated, It's hard to see multiple narratives at that point not being disinformation.

Early alternative narratives:
- A satellite retrieval gone wrong (again shades of Bennewitz)
- An apollo boilerplate capsule dropped by a helicopter into the forest
- The edited tape that crudely matches up with the lighthouse
- The alien parts requisition
- Comets theory
- Re entry Theory

Can we add time travellers to this? And do we just add Pennistons, and Burroughs hypnosis. Or do we add Jenny Randles time travel hypotheses as well.

I guess what I'm wondering is, did this also spring from a common source?

An awful lot of what they talked about seemed to reveal military projects relating to satellites, radar and the apollo module. This I found interesting: A satellite retrieval gone wrong (again shades of Bennewitz).

Of course non of these explain much of the circumstantial evidence or witness statements. Nor do they corroborate each other.

Why so many differing stories so early on.

Larry and Robin - I'll not cover here, I think that they stood by the Left At Eastgate story. Well worth listening to.

The rest:

- A return to Terahertz radiation, Condign, ELF - it's interesting that a nearby facility was rumoured to be involved in submarine communications - although the link is weak.
- Fourier transforms and their use in radar, as well as the holographic universe and holonomic mind. I think these tend towards super spectrum natural life form explanations.

Nick Pope:
- Generally I feel Nick is honest and when he is asked something he doesn't want to answer, he makes that clear.
- He refused to answer a few questions, one on FOI which I can understand because he wasn't clear on how it would function. The other was much more enlightening, regarding weaponisation of the plasma phenomena.

Personally, I've found it interesting to read Dr David Clarke's correspondence with the MOD requesting files. For the first time, I actually got the feeling that Clarke might have as very different view point to the one he talks about publicly. This then lead to Jenny Randles correspondence, which again, seemed at odds with her public persona.

Both have done excellent work in their time, and I say this without meaning to cause offence, but there appears to be a switch after a certain length of time in ufology where the public and private views no longer match. Perhaps there same of Nick Pope.

I'm undecided on Mark Pilkington having very little knowledge of him beyond his excellent look at the Bennewtiz affair.

I've come to the conclusion that I have no interest in further investigating this topic if it was solely the result of western powers testing something classified for national security. If it involved other terrestrial powers, nature, something little known I am.

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 03:56 PM
a reply to: ctj83

I actually found some of Chuck De Caro's interview interesting too.

As for Dot, Brenda and Jenny. Well I think we have to be fair to them and realize they were investigating all of this when no one had heard about this incident. All at a time before things like the internet and when the only mass market home computer was the ZX81 with 4k of memory. Everything had to be done by phone or face to face . Information was harder to collate in them days and even harder to verify.

- The satellite retrieval seems unlikely. A Russian booster rocket did come down over the North Sea around the time of the first night but there is no evidence a satellite did.

- The Apollo 'boiler plate' doesn't work either. If it was there on the first night then why wasn't it there when the photos of the 'marks in the ground' were taken next morning nor when Colonel Halt went out to the site a couple of nights later? I've already covered that : link

Although it was heavily promoted in Radio Suffolk's 30th anniversary special

- The Halt tape does match the flash of the lighthouse beacon. I'm sure you know the rest of the debates about the damned lighthouse? Whether the tape is edited/sped up etc.... I don't think it is to be fair. Maybe it did confuse the men for a time. But for 3 nights? I find that hard to believe.

- The alien parts . A really weird tale that come from Adrian Bustinza's interview in 1987 with Larry Fawcett : link

- The comets/rocket booster re-entry. Yes there was a celestial display around the time : link to clip from Jan 1981 New Scientist . I don't really think that accounts for the whole set of events either.

Did Brenda also mention some strange Naval ship experiments as well? I guess this is all to do with questioning locals and US Air Force personnel at the time around Suffolk. I found Jenny Randles the most interesting but the most difficult to listen to because the line wasn't clear..

Larry Warren is always great on radio shows. A New Yorker who lives in Liverpool! So he tells you it straight to the point! Peter Robbins is also a very interesting and thoughtful speaker and I think they have every right to defend their book "Left At East Gate".

As for Nick Pope I think he exaggerates the importance of his role on the "UFO Project" especially to American audiences. He was only there for 3 years and it formed a minor part of his job. But I would do the same if I were him. He's a decent writer, and speaker and has done a lot to soften the 'smirk' factor aimed at ufology. But he still ultimately is a company man and bound by his lifetime oaths to Queen & country.

Some see Dr. David Clarke as a government agent of disinformation after accusations of 'interference' in UK cases. Even though he's done some sterling work as well!

Pilkington, could possibly be a real life "Mirage Man" couldn't he? I found the "Mirage Men" movie very compelling. Unlike his crop circles.

Anyway I've been meaning to collate all the information I have gathered (from podcasts, interviews, web pages, video, books, magazine and newspaper articles) on Rendlesham into a MS Access database for a long time. But there is so much now that I may never get around to it.

Oh and if the West were testing something then why do you have no further interest? It may have been an experiment that ripped space/time apart or opened another dimension for all we know.

Keep up the good work.
The truth is out there somewhere

edit on 29/1/16 by mirageman because: typo

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I'm beginning to see a pattern, which I suspect you already have. So, excuse me if I'm behind the curve. There seems to be in uk ufology, a subset of individuals who are actually invested in holding back cases such as this and Berwyn.

Beyond that, the emergence of so many narratives ( many appear to be 'strange loops') as you just went through and eliminated doesn't seem natural.

Apologies for the vague nature of the following.

I've found several quotations from key participants in the early eighties that fit in with my radiation hypothesis and my earlier cgi one to a lesser degree. My problem is that the quote if not correct , either makes a liar of the ufologist and book author, or of Colonel Halt.

At the time (83-85) the quote about it what happened would have been a trivial anecdote and a throwaway piece of disinformation corroborated by Warren.

There is a third alternative, that the quote was correct and that substantiates something that is said in the Warren podcast and that I postulated in my radiation thread.

Very puzzled.

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:40 PM
a reply to: ctj83

All I can say is that Ufology stateside was 'massively' polluted in the 1980s with some very strange and expansive tales. The Bennewitz story is amongst it all.

There seems to have been a knock on effect here in the 1990s followed swiftly by a very determined debunking effort.

Unfortunately we have to sift through it all and decide what to discard and what to pay more attention to. At the end of the day, although I've known about this case since 1983, I've never really known what caused it.

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:27 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Remember this illustration from "Halt", according to the Daily Mail?

It is in fact, by the whistleblower that Told Brenda about the RFI in 1981.

"Steve Roberts" befriended Brenda and her boyfriend before the RFI occurred, at least as far as a I can tell.

"Steve" has never been publicly identified by anyone by Georgia Bruni claimed to know his identity. He was interviewed by Georgia who stated that he was not one of the participants.

Georgia asked him, in her book, "you can't tell the people" if he stood by his account,to Brenda ,of seeing aliens in silver suits. Essentially he denied that there were aliens but there was a craft. This contradicts the story he gave Brenda that strangely parallels much of Larry's story.

Of course, his craft looks nothing like what Halt, Penniston and Burroughs variously described and could never have fit through the trees!

Georgia asked about this difference and Roberts reply was simply "No comment"!

What Georgia missed was the fact that Roberts' encounter matches Warren's and Bustinzas encounter in the field! The craft does not match what they described.

I'd be tempted to say that Roberts could have easily pointed out his encounter occurred on another night and was different. He didn't.

In 1981 he recounts a story of aliens and draws a craft that matches nothing else but conflates the legs of Pennistons craft, and the tripod marks with the size and alien light tubes of Warren.

In 1987 he returns from travel and tells Brenda that the whole event was a hoax that he was ordered to spread to cover another one event.

In 1999 he tells Georgia the event happened but there was no landing or aliens seen.

Roberts story is the weakest of all, and brings together elements of halt, warren, Burroughs and Pennistons various narratives. In fact I can only suggest a few options.

- That Roberts story is the closest to the original hoax story to be spread and each of the others has run with aspects of it.

- That Halts claim that Larry stole a fictitious story from a coworker (Roberts) is not correct. Roberts was actually given the story formed from a combination of information from the debriefings. He was then ordered to spread the story to ufologists.

I strongly feel the latter is more likely. My only point. Of friction is why is his craft nothing like Halt's, Pennsitons or the Warren variant?

I'm convinced that the difference in models - from just lights to a triangle to a pyramid with little wings - to this "illustration" is key.

My conclusion is that Roberts illustration is so classically 'ufo' and the other sightings are so different in style (even the arrangement of floating plasma lights) that it was created quickly and with little reference to even Halts experience.

I'd like to propose that the reason it's a generic saucer with alien beam tubes, and Penniston tripod legs is that it was part of a narrative that was created quickly.

Why? The danger of a leak and the need to beat it's release.

Doesn't that seem unusual, for the event to be leaked before anything happened?

My only suggestion is that Larry's phone call and proven letter to his mother, combined with past experience kickstarted the Roberts disinformation program.

The 1987 claim that the event was a hoax that the airman were told to spread is hard to reconcile with a few facts.

- why would Larry be ordered to spread a false story but begin with his own mother?
- why would Halt incorrectly state that Warren hadn't received his PRP and was not on duty?
- Why would Halt suggest that Warren stole a made up story from Roberts?

Ultimately if Warrens story was stolen from Roberts but the whole event was a hoax they were ordered to spread, why undermine Larry? His story was so close to Roberts it would serve the same purpose to fuel the hoax!

Halt actually damaged the hoax hypothesis and explanation in 1987 because he claimed Roberts story was fictitious and so was Warrens.

If there was a hoax, Halt was a huge problem. It's his own testimony and recording that suggests it's true but he denies the Roberts and Warren story which would have been better left as honest recollections!

I think that this is hugely significant point and it can't be reasonably argued in any other way I've found.


We know:
- Halt has always maintained his own story
- Halt has the recording and memo as proof
- Halt has tried to exclude other narratives
- Halt has claimed Larry has been messed with and told Pter Robbins that he knew of the NSAS involvement with Larry.

Is it in fact Halt who feels that other narratives were created to destroy his encounter?

Was the Roberts story an attempt to unbalance the narrative away from the Halt encounter towards a more fictitious one by volume of altertive narratives?

Or was the Roberts story an attempt to undermine all of the narratives?

edit on 30-1-2016 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:22 AM
a reply to: ctj83

...........Or was the Roberts story an attempt to undermine all of the narratives?

You may have looked at the Roberts story from the wrong angle.

According to Ian Ridpath earlier in this thread (and Brenda mentions it in the interview with John Burroughs too) - Steve Roberts was actually a character called J.D Ingalls (or maybe it was Jay D. Ingalls?) . His story was a combination of various rumours he'd heard from others so he could impress Brenda.

Perhaps that explains why it is the weakest of all. Because he had tried to patch together all the various narratives and filled in the gaps with his own imagination.

As for Halt. There are many questions about his actions at the time, what he says in public and what he actually knows about the incident. One of the biggest is that he had a couple of micro-cassettes with him but his tape only lasts some 18 mins. when his excursion into the forest lasted 3, maybe 4, hours and ends abruptly whilst the light show continues in the sky.

3.30: And the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it's losing a little bit of altitude. We're turning around and heading back toward the base. The object to the...the object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.


0:400 Hours one object still hovering over the Woodbridge base at about 5-10 degrees off the horizon. Still moving erratic and similar lights beaming down as earlier.

Now I wouldn't expect him to keep a running commentary. But there is mysteriously nothing that matches Burroughs, Bustinza's or Warren's encounters with something out in Capel Green. Instead all we hear about are lights in the sky and his decision to head back to base. Seemingly deciding that he couldn't or wouldn't take any further action.

edit on 30/1/16 by mirageman because: formatting

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:11 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for that MM, I really need to read this thread again.

It certainly explains the weird illustration. It took that standard UFO model and grafted on various details!

The following Charles Halt / Sally Rayl 1997 interview is interesting:

Rayl: [...] He said that Warren was originally repeating stories of alien contact that were circulating and were, which later admitted by the source, a fellow, a pseudonym given, Steve Roberts…?

Halt: Uh huh.

Rayl: …to have been a deliberate fabrication. So, apparently, this fellow, Steve Roberts which is a pseudonym, went out and told this story and then later said it was a complete fabrication and now is saying that Larry Warren just picked up the story. Do you know anything about that? Does that make sense to you?

Halt: That individual I’d rather not reveal his name since he doesn’t want it revealed worked in the back office with Larry Warren in the security police squadron and was closely associated with him. I know who that person is.

Rayl: And did he tell you that he had deliberately fabricated stories and that Larry picked up on them?

Halt: No. He didn’t tell me that personally. I heard that second- hand.

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:20 PM
a reply to: mirageman

The following is awkward because I'm well aware that each person mentioned here is a real, living person. As such I'm not trying to suggest anyone was dishonest but I struggle to reconcile the increasing weight of a lot of circumstantial evidence.


When I've got some spare time, I'm going to write up the interview I referenced earlier. It's from SkyCrash, the end of Chapter 19.

Essentially Halt describes how far more occurred during his encounter than is recorded in the evidence. Him and the others would approach the craft and each time they got within a few feet, it would move back. Halt then relates that one of the participants tried climbed up onto the craft in front of him, and the craft moved back.

He also states that, one of these participants who had some sort of breakdown, believing that he'd been part of something historic and who stayed out in the woods for 3 nights waiting for the craft to return. Friends brought him food and blankets.

The authors suspect this man was either Bustinza or Burroughs. They also speculate how he might have been affected b the radiating energy of the craft.


1) Randels incorrectly reports the source of the conversation.

I've not heard from Penniston or Warren about them going out to someone staying in the forest. Why wouldn't this be part of the early narrative, and if so, wouldn't Halt shoot it down as part of his Warren / Burroughs distancing back in the early days?

2) Randels reports Halts statement correctly - Halt lied

This seems very unlikely. Why would this serve Halt? One possibility is disinformation.

3) Randels reports Halts accurate and truthful recollection.

Halt tells of one of the three men climbing on the craft, then spending three days in the wood.

Supporting Evidence:
- Warren in a previous video you supplied in the thread, tells of how Burroughs climbed the craft.
- The Phenomenon Radio interview has a rather awkward section when Larry tells Burroughs he saw him approach the craft. Burroughs is probably disagreeing but being professional. Still...
- In Chapter 20 of Sky Crash, Jenny relates how another person on base told them about someone climbing the craft. Jenny states it was far less detailed than Halt's account.
- Burroughs hypnosis tape - which I largely discount - recounts Halt telling Burroughs that HE can bring the craft closer.
- John's injuries


1)Halt, Warren and unnamed person stationed at the base all relate the same event

2) Warren in the past has spoken of John climbing the craft.

3) John himself, I believe has denied this occurred on other occasions, but on the radio interview it was just odd.


If Halt, Jenny and Larry relate a totally fictitious event, what was the point of it? Radiation exposure increases with proximity (exponentially, not linearly), how can we explain John's injuries without him having gotten the closest?

Why would John have no recollection of this? If it happened, did it happen to someone else? If so how do we reconcile with John's injuries?

Was this Burroughs, or Bustinza as Randles suspected at the time? How could we resolve that with John's injuries.

More importantly. Why isn't Halts 'climbing incident' on the tape?

And why has the 3 nights in the wood episode ever been mentioned? Was this to protect someone?

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: ctj83

I can help a little bit, but not a lot, on that point about someone spending 3 nights in the woods.

I have heard Colonel Halt mention that John Burroughs kept going out into the woods in the nights that followed. It was in a radio interview but I can't remember which one it was.

It might have been this one :

However John Burroughs has never mentioned this that I know of.

Halt has also claimed that many of the witnesses were drugged or hypnotised in interrogations after the event. Maybe Halt was as well and doesn't recall it? If that's the case, then it may explain the differing memories of what happened, the crazy binary code story and the seeming inability to find some collective common ground. It's also shocking if true.

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 04:06 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Hello again.
I've re-read this up to page seven so forgive me if im repeating but this months Fortean Times has part two of Jenny Randles' re-examination of the case.
Looking at the areas prior activity is worth a read.
Green mists coming in from the sea, seen by lighthouse keeper several times.
'Cobra Mist' over the horizon radar array, complete with the occasional "blob" (!?) seen rising over the grounds.
Possible Soviet jamming equipment in use.
Radio and television interference and cars stalling nearby....
I won't spoil it for those who subscribe, and part three is next month.
Hats off to Jenny folks.
She has been busy.
edit on 30-1-2016 by Tulpa because: My mom thinks I'm cool

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 11:30 AM
a reply to: Tulpa

I've not read these, thanks for letting me know. As far as I know both the Cobra Mist system and the Woodpecker / Duga did not actual work. Duga was also not the source of the jamming, see the recent documentary The Woodpecker. Also, the localised nature of the interference tells you that it was not the Duga.

Having said that, I can see other experimental technology nearby factoring in. What I can't see is green mist being created easily by RF, terahertz or ELF.

It is very intriguing though...

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:24 PM
a reply to: ctj83

These were just events / anomolies that she noted in and around the general area in the years prior.
I think she was trying to establish if RFI was a unique event and not part of a bigger picture regarding that locality.
Amazing how much you can find going on when you start digging.
She's an excellent finder of facts.
I get the feeling she would've been a star if she'd joined the police as a detective.
edit on 31-1-2016 by Tulpa because: Secret

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: mirageman

I've just re listened to Chuck's interview, and honestly, it was incredibly poor. Not the Phenomena radio team, but Chuck's responses, and constant evasions. I found this particularly sad because his reporting was so excellent on CNN.

Please note, I'm not necessarily supportive of the ET hypothesis in relation to RFI, that isn't my issue with Chuck's responses.

In essence Chuck's MO is as so:

- Question asked by the team
- General response of 'well it could be, but have you considered a,b,c'
- Linda, have you heard of this term x,y or z
- Book reference.

- 10 minutes later, apologising for references but explaining why he's doing it to open peoples minds.

It becomes pretty clear that Linda catches on to this after the first hour. At first she is fairly easy at saying 'no', 'or I'm not sure'. After that, she just jumps to "Yes, I've heard of that".

So much of what Chuck says is so peripheral and weakly linked (Japanese balloons, German gas and many many more). In of itself, it's pretty interesting but it doesn't relate to what John and to lesser extent Linda asked him.

Listen to the section around the last 20 minutes where John attempts to dismantle Chuck's argument that it was mind control and possibly '___' type drugging. John then introduces Condign and Condon.

It's worth paying attention to how authoritative Chuck sounds when talking about how these two reports don't say what John thinks they do (he could be right). He also says that they were meant to hide things as much as reveal. Again that could be true.

Then after you've listened to it, list ANY specifics Chuck gave around Condign. In fact, I couldn't find one vague or even specific reference to Condign, even though he begins his answer by saying both were designed to hide things.

Just as Chuck's interview pattern repeats, you can also see issues with what he tells.

My personal opinion is, he hasn't read Condign, and wasn't really capable of providing answers and at points didn't want to provide answers.

With that said, he provided three interesting concepts:

- Electro optical cloaking using a camera and an LCD system on the crafts body (see my CGI proposal)
- Some people can hear radar
- "We can use RF to make people see things..."

He reveals these right at the end and honestly, I wonder if it's because he'd calmed down.

I feel bad writing such a negative review, but he has a real inability to stay on point and there were certain points where it was very clear he had no idea of what was being referenced, and instead of saying "tell me more", he would introduce a new reference or 'wing it'.

Again, I think it's sad because Chuck is very personable, very knowledgable he did some great reporting at the beginning of RFI and just staying on topic and pruning his references would have helped immensely. I wasn't looking or hoping for a woo answer but he threw way too much out there to make much sense of.
edit on 1-2-2016 by ctj83 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:21 AM
Quotes, as promised from SkyCrash:

"Hell", he said, 'it sounds like you know most of it already.'

He started to talk, filling in the details. Interesting stuff. None of it had been included in his report to the MOD

He said that three men went out to the craft on the first night. On of the three actually tried to climb on top of it as it sat there in front of them! As he did this the craft rose off the ground and moved away from them through the forest. The pursued it.

What happened to him, he was asked.

'He wouldn't come back. He stayed out there in the forest for three days, hoping the craft would come back. He felt as if he had been part of something historic"

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:15 PM
a reply to: ctj83

To be honest I've heard Linda Moulton Howe on a few radio shows (mainly Coast to Coast AM out of the USA) and not thought a lot of her stlye. She always seemed to deliberate over each and every word and her delivery was stilted in a staccato tone. It often feels like she's reading from a cue card without the aid of spectacles.

But I do think she seems more relaxed and natural on this "Phenomenon" Radio show. Perhaps because John Burroughs takes some of the weight off her and perhaps because she is not as nervous.

I did like Chuck De Caro mentioning the early days of his investigations. But I tend to listen whilst driving and it's not always easy paying attention to the minutiae of these interviews. Perhaps he did 'wing it' as you say and that's why he went off at tangents. I found Jenny Randles (along with Dot Street and Brenda Butler's) show interesting. However I am not sure how much of it was really relevant to the case any more. Much of it was probably rumour and fabrication.

That's why I am not sure how relevant 'Skycrash' (a 32 year old book) is to the case. Although it would be entirely wrong to dismiss it as well. Unfortunately Rendlesham is a huge jigsaw puzzle, with pieces scattered across many different places and we don't have a picture on the box to go by!!!

Regards MM

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 01:19 AM
a reply to: mirageman

I think you're probably right regarding Linda.

In terms of SkyCrah, I only think it is relevant in the following ways:

- it reports John or Adrian climbed the craft then spent three days in the wood.

- it either shows the origin of the rumour or is a genuine reporting of the fact John climbed on the craft
- The authors either misreported Halt or he misreported, if this is rumour

If either the authors or Halt fabricated this, I think that's very telling.

If Halt never said these things, then it seems quite wrong to quite him and it seems oddly specific.

My point being if this is incorrect (and according to John it is) then someone created this quote for a reason, that seems to fit in rather well with radiation injuries in the 21st century.


- Is Halt the source of the rumour?
- are Brenda and Dot?
- is Jenny Randles?

Is this part of a disinformation narrative and therefore the creator part of the disinformation campaign?

Or, is it true?

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:03 PM

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

I think you're probably right regarding Linda.

In terms of SkyCrash, I only think it is relevant in the following ways:

- it reports John or Adrian climbed the craft then spent three days in the wood.

- it either shows the origin of the rumour or is a genuine reporting of the fact John climbed on the craft
- The authors either misreported Halt or he misreported, if this is rumour

If either the authors or Halt fabricated this, I think that's very telling.

If Halt never said these things, then it seems quite wrong to quite him and it seems oddly specific.

My point being if this is incorrect (and according to John it is) then someone created this quote for a reason, that seems to fit in rather well with radiation injuries in the 21st century.


- Is Halt the source of the rumour?
- are Brenda and Dot?
- is Jenny Randles?

Is this part of a disinformation narrative and therefore the creator part of the disinformation campaign?

Or, is it true?

That's the problem with the whole damned story isn't it. Who to believe? Maybe the guys involved don't even know for reasons we've discussed previously.

The alternative story from Adrian is that he slipped over as they approached the 'phenomenon' (for want of a better word). John disappeared into 'the light' and then suddenly everything went dark as he caught up with him.

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: mirageman

I think you're right, but it's a little more, binary, for want of a better word.

The dark matter radio show with Halt and Burroughs was interesting. Beyond Halt relating John wanting to go back out I didn't hear anything about three nights in the wood.

Later John talks of having no memories at two specific points:

- first night as he and Penniston approach the craft
- Second night, as Busty sees him enter the light.

At this point, I think it's possible to exclude Randles, Butler and Street from this story and say the following.

That at various points during the investigation the following people claim to have witnessed Burrell enter the light around the craft or climb up on it.

- Larry Warren (in a video earlier in this thread)
- Halt - in Skycrash
- Bustinza - in Phenomena podcast
- unnamed airman - in Skycrash

John cannot refute these claims because as he said in the Dark Matters interview (after Halt had left) he remember running towards it, then a blank and then looking back at everyone from the field.

I think, therefore, it's fair to conclude that there is only one option. Something occurred during that missing time.

Either Halt, Warren, Bustinza and Burroughs were 'messed with' to put focus on Burroughs interacting with the craft, that never happened.

We are then left wondering why John sustained his injuries and was this to cover up the real source?


They relate an actual event, and John interacted in some way and was injured at the point. The phenomena could have been natural, terrestrial (western powers or other), or some form of extra / ultra terrestrial.

In the confines of understanding this, it doesn't matter what it was, just that multiple accounts sugget, as does John's memory lapse, that this is when the injury occurred.

We know that the type of injuries Kit and Condign speak of are both related to distance (exponential fall off) and exposure time.

Discounting what the phenomena was, this is the simplest way to explain what happened to John in a way that fits the various accounts given, John's own account, Condign and Kit Greens statement.

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:04 PM
a reply to: ctj83

.....That at various points during the investigation the following people claim to have witnessed Burrell enter the light around the craft or climb up on it.

I see the powers that be got to you as well and you have introduced a new witness to the narrative yourself

Yes I discount the majority of Jim Penniston's testimony because the man is either feeding false information knowingly, or badly disturbed by whatever happened to him during the incident and it's aftermath. His story just doesn't really fit with Cabansag's or Burroughs' (or Skip Buran's, who called off their search on the first night). The introduction of the drawing of the glyphs, failed photos, touching a craft and the binary codes all seems like a mix of some bad science fiction stories.

Halt's story is missing something in my opinion. There is no real explanation for leaving the base just to see lights in the forest (this was technically trespassing) with no real just cause like the first night. There seems to have been a crowd of men on foot and in vehicles and with lightalls. Who gave permission for them all to leave base into UK sovereign territory? Then when he gets out there he's seeing strange lights in the forest, strange lights overhead and beaming lights over his base and at his feet. Does he call in RAF or USAF? No he just comes back to base and then types up a memo a few weeks later, getting the date wrong and not actually asking for any action from the British MoD but later claiming they did nothing about it.

Larry Warren's story was out there on the periphery for many years with most of the 'company men' all denying his presence at all. But he slowly became impossible to ignore. His eye and skin problems, suggest that the men may have been exposed to something on that third night along with our friend Jack Burrell ......errr John Burroughs.

It's also possible that the DoD VA were perhaps not aware of the history of this incident when dealing with Burroughs original claim. Then eventually realising what they had got themselves into, with Senators involved and UFO stories and Secret Access Programs, perhaps decided to pay up at that point. The source of Burroughs injuries never properly understood by them. However paying out would then allow the story to fade away with as few questions asked as possible.

Addition to above :

One resource you might find very useful is the "archived" version of the old Rendlesham forum. A number of those involved made an appearance on there as well. Although you can no longer post it's a mine of information.

Rendlesham-Incident Forum Archives

edit on 3/2/16 by mirageman because: Addition

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:54 PM
a reply to: mirageman

Jack Burrell! That's what I get for writing on my phone!

Or... An intentional leak of a mystery witness ?

top topics

<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in