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

a reply to: mirageman

I'm struggling to keep up because I'm relying on a lot of stuff I read years ago. I've re-read some of the better stuff but, as you know, this story keeps growing.
I want to get them all eventually but £ restricts. I'm collecting other topics also so progress is slow.
Been watching all the DVDs.
Starting to feel like I was there that night too!
Cheers.

a reply to: Tulpa

Here's an interesting one for you and others still following this case. I stumbles upon it tonight.



One of the few clips to feature all three men from the first night who were in the forest together. Burroughs, Penniston and Cabansag (who rarely speaks about the incident and to my knowledge hasn't since the early 2000s).

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for that.
At least part of that clip is included in the doc 'Out of the blue'. Some may also be from 'I know what I saw'.
Wi-Fis playing up so couldn't watch it all yet.
Still binging on DVDs and as well as the above, the case is also on 'UFOs and the military elite', 'Fastwalkers the truth' and, I think, 'The secret evidence'.

Getting square eyes.

a reply to: mirageman

Additional find.
Page 112 of Paul Stonehills The Soviet UFO Files has an interesting photo.
The only information provided is as follows
"A triangular craft photographed in Kiev in 1990 and sent anonymously to the Russian Ufology Association."
I've not seen the picture elsewhere and it could always have been faked after hearing about RFI but if you can find it, its well worth a look.
It is triangular but also has depth like a three sided pyramid which is slanted forward at a steep angle.

Personally, I could imagine it all lit up and moving around in the woods.
As usual, though, the same caution applies to this as it does all UFO photos.
Buyer beware.
Apologies that I can't give a link but its just something I came across recently in the book.
Worth a peep if you can.

a reply to: Tulpa

Thanks I will try to track that photo down.

Another interesting, story comes from a caller on the James Whale radio show in the youtube video below:



At around 1hr 06 mins 30 secs a guy calls in to ask Nick Pope about "D" notices. He then goes on to talk about a sighting by a group of people (including 2 policemen) above the Bentwaters airbase and how it was 'ridiculed' by the local press. Apparently beams of light were seen going up into the cloud cover, explosion and sparks were seen.

Never heard of it myself.

Another interesting interview is this one with Georgina Bruni. One of the few full radio show interviews she gave on here book "You Can't Tell the People". It's linked somewhere earlier in this thread but here it is again.

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for those.
A new router is on its way to us so, hopefully, I'll get to watch them pretty soon.
I'll be going back over this thread again to see a few more I've missed.
My connection is wavering if you were wondering.
If I'm patient I can sometimes post here but you tube etc is kinda tricky. Blasted phone!
Cheers again.

From 12 minutes 19 seconds if all you wish to see is about Rendlesham .

From 19 mintues 40 seconds the interview with Munro Nevilles is truly fascinating.

"One of the light beams that came down penetrated through one of the bunkers that had the nuclear weapons in it. It actually burned a hole through the bunker and was able to get through to the site where the weapons were"

a reply to: FireMoon

Very interesting.

It's basically a contradiction of what Tim Egercic claimed on the 2010 radio show Behind the Paranormal. Tim was stationed in the WSA (Weapons Storage Area) at the time Colonel Halt and Monroe Nevilles claim to have seen the beams striking down on the base. Here he calls in to challenge Colonel Halt's claims that a witness (seemingly Nevilles) claimed something had penetrated the WSA area.

Eggercic goes on to explain that he feels sure he would have been ordered to alert and recall people from their barracks if an ‘unknown’ had got anywhere near to the WSA. Halt stated that the command post didn’t want to do anything. Even though technically Halt was in charge!

So is Nevilles another confused witness?

Tim Egercic has a "fan" in Ian Ridpath, so I think we can surmise something from that........ cough cough, wink wink , know what I mean squire? nods as god as wink. Flashing eh Sir? is that what they were flashing Sir? Did they flash at you Sir, did you see them flash Sir did you? .................... Actually , yes I did...................... Errrr what were they like then Sir, go on tell me cos I didn't see anything.

Seriously though, one thing I think most must have noticed is how, when the going actually gets "weird" the military of both the UK and the USA seek to limit to as small an amount of possible witnesses as they can. In truth, I'd expect exactly what did happen, that being that seemingly, Tim Egercic was kept out of the loop as it were. Now, if you know nothing as I suspect Tim Egercic did about the past history of the American military and its' attitude towards all this weird stuff then maybe, just maybe you'd question what happened. However, should one make even a perfunctory investigation into a couple of such sightings, there is a quite obvious pattern emerges.

At the very essence of Rendlesham is a ranking officer going "public" by accident , Halt never really wanted to be dragged into all this from the very get go. he himself has said, his mission was to debunk this high silliness and put a lid on people talking about UFOs on a fully operational military base. As such, Halt was outed by mistake, it is now seen that it was in effect, a clerical error and a lack of communication between the USA and the UK that led to the "facts" being exposed. Had Halt decided to "tow the party line" then, the whole incident would have been summarily dismissed out of hand and we probably, wouldn't be still here talking about it at this length.

Ridpath, Clarke, Roberts and even Randles are nothing more than annoying static clogging up the arteries of incident that has, in effect, been admitted to by both the USA and the UK, as being of "high strangeness" and involving UAP(s). That does't make it "aliens" however, the idea it was all some "misidentification" is now well and truly dead and buried and the sooner certain parties accept that and move on, the better.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm pleased to update this thread with what I think could lead to some minor progress in the case. A while back, in a few Rendlesham threads i commented on Jenny Randles, Dot Streets' book SkyCrash. What caught my eye was that the investigation team, during that first year, went to interview Halt.

Initially reluctant to talk, he eventually began telling them that one of the three men on the first night climbed up on the vehicle. This would mean that Penniston, Burroughs or Cabansag claimed on the vehicle. Halt then describes how this person then remained in the woods for several nights, hoping to have a repeat encounter.

SkyCrash contains a similar story from another, unnamed source. To compound this rumour, Larry Warren can be seen in a video in this thread, relating the story of someone climbing onto the phenomena.

The radio interview (again in this thread) presented by Linda Moulten-Howe and John Burroughs, has a rather awkward moment where Larry addresses this with Burroughs. The situation is awkward, and Burroughs doesn't comment (although I've heard him deny getting on the phenomena in other interview). What is very interesting is that Burroughs does admit to running towards the lights, and suddenly having a memory gap and being stood at the other side of the field...

To summarise, we have Colonel Halt claiming that one of the men climbed on the phenomena. We have a very similar story from an unnamed witness and a third similar version from Larry Warren. Burroughs admits running towards the craft and missing memory but will not corroborate these accounts.

From my own research on the radiation effects required for John's injuries, a conventional nuclear source would have had to have delivered 30+ rads to John at close range in, at most a few minutes, but probably seconds (due to the rapid falloff of intensity known as the inverse power law). As John seems to have suffered far more than Penniston or Cabansag it's hard to understand why else he was so badly injured apart from proximity.

Evidence suggesting John got the closes to (and possibly mounted) the phenomena.
- Sky Crash: Colonel Halt
- Sky Crash: Unnamed base personel
- Video interview Larry Warren, Rendlesham Forest
- John's Mitral valve leaf shredding, amongst other injuries
- Kit Green's radiation injuries post
- John's VA / DOD victory based on these injuries
- Close proximity to sustain injuries from an ionising radiation source
- John Burrough's own recollection of running towards the phenomena (no climbing, but missing time)

Considering John denies climbing the craft, but also admits he has no memory of how he ran at it, but ended up at the other side of the field, I think we need to eliminate him as a source of this story.

In one of my previous posts, I suggested that much hinged on the accuracy of Sky Crash's report. I wondered if Randles, Street et al, might have misreported or confused that incident.I'm pleased to say that Jenny has addressed this very concern in the latest issue of the Fortean Times, reiterating Halt and other witness' statements about an airman, climbing the craft, staying in the woods and being seen crying at the edge of the woods.



I'm assuming that Jenny and Fortean Times will be ok me sharing this excerpt, under fair use, and I'd suggest anyone interested in this case pick up this and the last few issues of Fortean Times for her RFI retrospective.

This leaves us with a few questions but in my opinion closer to some sort of truth than before:

- Why did Halt and others talk of this incident initially but for so many years it has been ignored?
- As Randles has confirmed that Halt did tell the authors of this incident, Halt becomes the main focus for this rumour. Did he report an incident as told to or witnessed by himself? Or did he pass on an early piece of disinformation?
- If the climbing report was fictitious, why was Halt told of it? Is he now suspicious?

If Halt's report (and others statements) is correct, then we have something that explains:
- John's injuries and Kit Green's statements regarding unusual radiation emissions
- The Condon reports buoyant plasma phenomena is reinforced in terms of memory effects, but not correct about this being natural
- The nature of the phenomena (emitting large amounts of radiation for some non propulsive purpose)
- The physicality of the phenomena. This can't be earthlight, willow the wisp, police card lights etc.
- What happened to John during his missing time
- Why John has the most severe injuries
- Larry Warren's own statements about John climbing the craft

In light of the Fortean Times article, if John did not climb the craft, then Halt can be seen as the earliest source of this rumour that is documented. If the account is false we have then following problems:

- Why would Halt relate this bizarre tale, if false, so early on?
- If false, who was the source that fed Warren, other witnesses and Halt this tale?
- If false, how was John really injured?

Only Halt and Warren know why they believe or related this incident. However, Warren has made repeated statements about it and claimed to have witnessed it.

Which means, we wait for Halt to address this rumour and if he stands by it.

If he doesn't - why was such a rumour spread so early on? How can it be wrong and be so consistent with recent developments for John?

If Halt does stand by the climbing incident, then the RFI can no longer be considered to be solely the product of natural boyent plasma, police car lights or light houses.

It firmly becomes about a physical object, with incredibly bright lights, able to manoeuvre, emitting large amounts of unusual radiation....

a reply to: FireMoon

Great share Firemoon. I'd like to add my own thoughts to Monroe's statement about the beam burning a hole down to the nuclear weapons.

I'd suspect that the electronics were exposed to a very powerful RF square wave transmission, effectively destroying the electronics of the weapon. Of course, it becomes problematic with RFI to talk about weapons, as we are officially supposed to be talking about nuclear warheads.

Why would I suggest a powerful RF transmission designed to induce a square wave?

You'll find that square waves popup a number of times in Hastings investigations of nuclear weapons base incursions (I don't think he's looked at the RFI though). Allegedly this was discovered due to Boeing investigating the damage to the navigational components. I'd dismiss this, if all the pieces didn't start to fit just a little more...

We also have further circumstantial evidence for the use of high powered non-ionising radiation being emitted from the craft:

- Condon Report talking about the effects on humans of an unknown type of RF 'UAP radiation and referencing John Burroughs and Rendlesham.
- Kit Green's statement that John was exposed to UAP radiation which is of a non-ionising RF type of field.
- John's medical treatment based on Kit's report on John's classified medical reports
- The military report I wrote about a few months ago, that speaks of the non-classical effects on biology of RF transmissions in narrow frequencies using unnatural wave forms.

My conclusions as of now are:

- The phenomena was most likely not just natural plasma / earth lights, as we have numerous reports of an airman mounting it. (possible intentional disinformation)
- That the phenomena was therefore physical, and matching up with John's injuries, the Condon Report, Kit Green's statement on ATS was emitting large amounts of non-ionising radiation for some purpose beyond propulsion
- That this incident was similar to other alleged nuclear weapons 'sabotage' and also involved the use of high powered RF transmissions to destroy electronics.

I'd like to suggest, that if Monroe's statement is accurate, and Halt's statement about someone mounting the craft is also accurate then the most likely scenario is the following:

- The base and WSA was approached, for three nights (not days) intentionally
- The location and timing was not coincidence but strategic
- That an expeditionary craft was sent into the woods to scan for and locate underground weapons
- As airmen were distracted a secondary force was dispatched over the WSA
- The craft were equipped with lasers to burn through shielding (as witnessed by Halt)
- The craft then induced powerful eddy currents into the electrical systems of any weapons (and maybe light alls?)

The craft requires several components:

- An intelligent way to manoeuvre and be controlled (radio controlled?)
- A method of propulsions (??)
- A power source (aircraft grade nuclear fission reactor?)
- An RF generator capable of high powered, directed emissions of various frequencies, waveforms and amplitudes
- A laser capable of burning a line-of-sight path to the electronics

There are some problems with the above particularly the propulsion, the power required by the laser, and the implementation of the RF generator, which I can see serious issues with.

Never the less, I can see some possible connections between:

- John's injuries from non ionising radiation.

- Halt's statement of the craft being mounted
- Hasting's alleged Boeing research suggestions RF square waves were being used to neutralise nuclear weapons
- Condon reports UAP radiation
- The Electromagnetic weapons report I found, and possibly referenced by Kit Green, probably ties together the 'square' wave electronics attack and the biological RF injuries we see.

a reply to: ctj83

With regard to this beam going through the hangar roof to the weapons inside, has anyone looked to see if there's a hole in the ceiling?
Or any signs of repair?
From the description that it "burned through". A beam of rays such as radio or x-ray doesn't usually leave any physical signs because those things pass straight through most objects. They are never described as burning through things.

Probably seems obvious but if it did " burn through" then it should have left some kind of mark which should still be visible. It would certainly add weight to these parts of the story.
This has annoyed me ever since I read it and I can't believe no one else has thought to go and look. The only real physical remains of the event if we ignore the "landing" marks. If maintenance records are kept, there should be a date and description of any alterations or repairs.

Yes, you would have to decide if it was more disinformation but a straight forward entry for the relevant time in a repair log would help.
At least for this one event.

a reply to: ctj83

Excellent write up.

However the Fortean TImes article obviously refers to Night 1 - 25th/26th Dec when Burroughs was accompanied by Ed Cabansag and Jim Penniston. Larry Warren could not have witnessed any of them climbing onto an object because he was not on duty until 2 nights later on the 28th/29th of December.

It is unlikely Burroughs stayed out in the woods because he returned to base with Ed Cabansag. Captain Verrano and Major Drury had questioned the three men once they returned from the incident. Burroughs and Penniston also went out to the landing site with the two officers and Ray Gulyas on the morning of 26th Dec (Boxing Day). This was also the morning when Penniston managed to miraculously return home to Ipswich, manage to obtain plaster of Paris from a friend there, drive back to Bentwaters, walk back through the forest, mix the plaster and place it in the marks supposedly left by the craft, then inconspicuously wait for it to set. This all happened before 10:30am when we know the local police went out to look at the site.

On the night of the 28th/29th Burroughs was off duty and in civilian clothes. He had returned to the base expecting something to happen. And as we know it did!

So there again we have conflicting testimony pointing to something happening. It's possible Halt was misinformed or misinforming Jenny Randles. He did a similar 'condensing of time' with his infamous memo by making it sound like everything happened on the one night. Either that or Larry Warren's take on events is wrong. Or of course none of it is correct and it never happened?

a reply to: Tulpa

I think once again we have a problem over this supposed lazer beam compromising the WSA because :

1) Tim Egercic becomes a liar if we believe Neviilles story.

2) Nevilles (nor any other witness has mentioned previously).

3)Nevilles could not have seen this event happen first hand because he was out in the forest with Halt.

4) He's either repeating something he's heard second hand or saw the damage for himself during the closing days of 1980 and totally forgot about it until now.

a reply to: mirageman

I thought it best to write down all the aspects of the incident, without totally colouring it with my own views.

Mirage, if you get a chance listen to the Howe / Burroughs interview with Peter and Larry again. Note how Burroughs seems to accept what Larry is saying, about seeing him and the craft near the car park. He denies climbing the craft, but of course --> "the night is wrong". yet he doesn't pick up on that? Why?

Burroughs didn't deny that he ran towards it, or that Warren couldn't have seen him.

- Cabansag - claims he was pushed towards the floor, as Burroughs ran towards the lights and shadow figures.
- Halt - the incident happened on the first night. Someone climbed the craft
- Burroughs - doesn't clarify which night, claims he ran towards the lights and had missing time
- Warren - claims he saw Burroughs near the car park, running towards the ufo
- Penniston - I've never heard him mention this. Why is that?

Who TOLD Halt about this event on night one?

- Cabansag (seems unlikely)
- Burroughs (then why deny it now?)
- Penniston (I've never heard him refer to the climbing on the craft incident)

Only Halt relates the running / climbing by Burroughs on night one.

My proposal:

1) Burroughs told Halt what happened on night one. His memory was erased in debrief.

2) The event did not happen on night one. Warren is correct, and witnessed it. So did Halt. Halt changed the date to protect himself. Even Burrough's narrative fits in with this one.

In ALL cases, Burrough's admits running at the craft. Cabansag saw it and dropped to the ground. Warren claims to have seen Burroughs in the car park, running at the craft. Again Burroughs AGREES with this assessment.

We have Burroughs, Warren, Halt and Cabansag all claiming that Buroughs ran towards the light / craft. There are only one thing in dispute:

- Which night? Only Halt says night one. Perhaps this is to allow him to relate the story but remove himself as a witness?

From all the evidence we have, including verbal testimony and medical evidence, it's clear that John got the closet to the phenomena and also suffered the worst injuries.

Only Halt knows the truth about the nights.

In either case, Burroughs lost his memory.

Much of this mystery resolves itself if Halt addresses this issue. If the night was intentionally changed to tell the Skycrash authors, it was to remove Halt as a witness. If it never happened, then ALL the key players have been given a false narrative which strongly implicates that John as a close encounter participant....

a reply to: ctj83

I think you are confusing Ed Cabansag (first night witness) with Adrian Bustinza (3rd night). Bustinza was the NCO on duty on Halt's night (and Larry Warren's night). He can be heard on the Halt tape confirming his call sign "Alpha 2 security".

Other than that I wonder why there is so much confusion what happened and when. Which I'll pick up tomorrow.

a reply to: mirageman

Sigh, that's disappointing I'd not noticed that. Bustinza was the one interviews who saw Burroughs approach the lights.

In October 1983, less than three years after the incident, Brenda Butler and Dot Street had a secret meeting with Jim Penniston. The story he told them was published in their book ‘Skycrash’.

Jim insisted that only he and John Burroughs were involved. According to Jim, when they approached the object:

“Burroughs went up to it and looked as if he were planning to touch it. But the craft responded. It drew in its legs, retracting them up into the main body - and then it began to move around the forest just above ground level.”

So in this early version of the events, Jim stayed behind while John approached the object and tried to touch it.

Maybe this turned into ‘tried to climb on top of it’ in the rumour mill on the base, and Larry Warren picked up this somewhat exaggerated version. Burroughs always denied it.

As we all know, in Jim’s later versions he himself is performing the heroic act of approaching and touching the object while Burroughs is the one who stays behind.

a reply to: ctj83

Nevilles and the Lazer Beam

I think we have some potential problems with Nevilles story. In 35 years no one has mentioned an energy beam burning a hole into the Weapons Storage Area (WSA) to my knowledge. Nothing mentioned in the books "Left at East Gate", "You Can't Tell the People" or "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest". Nor have any of the witnesses on radio and TV interviews mentioned this.

Nor have any of the people that frequented the old Rendlesham-Incid ent-Forum mentioned (which is now gone but preserved at the link). Nothing.

Nevilles is the only source of this story. He clearly states that one of the beams burned a hole through the bunker. So I don't think it's open to interpretation. No one has a story about repairing the WSA (although there were rumours that nuclear warheads were sent back to the US for tests). Tim Egercic, on duty in the WSA says nothing of the sort happened and the fact that the base was not put on alert makes me think Nevilles has either become a very confused man or someone has fed him duff information.

Burroughs Hitchin' A Ride on a UFO

Could this have happened twice? Did Burroughs attempt to mount a craft of unknown origin on the 1st and 3rd nights of the incident? Was it just the one night? If so which one? Or did it not happen at all?

The original witness testimony from the the 1st night does not support this happening (or anything Penniston later said about glyphs, photos and binary codes). Halt's tape is the original evidence from the third night but frustratingly makes no mention of Burroughs approaching the light(s).

With both stories it is impossible to get to what may have happened because the evidence is conflicting and contradictory (and almost purely anecdotal). That is basically the Rendlesham incident in a nutshell and to me suggests that a toxic stream of misinformation has been poisoning this story since the earliest moments.

originally posted by: mirageman
Tim Egercic, on duty in the WSA says nothing of the sort happened and the fact that the base was not put on alert makes me think Nevilles has either become a very confused man or someone has fed him duff information.

A confused witness, or a confused editor? The program is merely a set of interview fragments that are stitched together to construct a juicy story. Who knows where that fragment of Nevels came from? Maybe he was referring to another case he heard of or read about.