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

a reply to: FireMoon

If I had to draw a circle around any aspect of this case in an attempt to rationalise an event/occurrence, I would draw one around the event in the Capel Green field.

I wouldn't know where else to draw one!

The Capel Green field event feels more self-contained and less contaminated, principally because Warren's involvement has been downplayed (see: Peter Robbins latest books for examples of this), so less noise (IMHO). Bustinza has confirmed Larry was out there, has confirmed the mist, has even confirmed the appearance of the 'bubbles' coming off the craft. Battram has confirmed there was a mist. Robbins has that soil sample analysis. Larry suffered some kind of burn to the retinas of both eyes and visited the Optical Retina Clinic days later. In that recent-ish radio interview with Burroughs and Moulton-Howe, I think it was Bustinza who believes he slightly fell into the mist and may have contracted a nail fungal disease because of it.


ctj83, I found this newsletter online (compiled by Omar Fowler, FSR consultant, correspondence dated 31-Mar-1994):
www.ignaciodarnaude.com...

It is Warren's account of events, as given to Omar Fowler. There is a paragraph in there about a smaller triangular object that was so small, that "one of the personnel grabbed the object by putting his arms around it. The object then moved ten metres with him holding on to it." That would be the same night/morning.

I was planning to investigate if any other yellowish asprin-shaped patches of mist have sprung up either naturally/unnaturally, but haven't had much time to look into it. There was this, but I believe it was slightly doctored footage (see: 1h 32m 25s mark) : www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Guest101

Many thanks for the proboard link.
I'm saving that for later.

My point was that the more information that has been forthcoming, the more confusion is added.
That's why the fuzziness keeps growing.
Add to that the well known effect that any policeman will confirm.
A single event may be described in many different ways by any number of witnesses, dependant on their point of view, mood, previous experiences, vocabulary and imagination.
I say well known, but is it?
If all of those involved had told identical stories with matching details and timelines then it would be obvious to an observer that they had conspired to produce a required result.

This is where insertion of red herrings is most likely to be found.

I happen to know a bit about hypnosis and although it is useful in many ways I would be extremely cautious of any material gained that way, unless it could be confirmed as factual by a third party.
But this only echoes what I've said before about recent disclosures.
Volunteered information may be the most suspicious and should be treated with caution.

a reply to: Tulpa

I think a good pointer is the way that the authorities have gone after 'whistleblowers' like Assange and Snowden in modern times (and even the attempts in the UK to block the book "Spycatcher a good 7 years after Rendlesham). Whereas almost every UFO story "whistleblower" is left alone. Plus everything Assange and Snowden leaked still leaves nothing of substance on the UFO topic.

We know with many UFO witnesses there are stories of visits from Men-in-Black and secret threats etc. But the serious stuff is followed by serious measures that we see on the international news.

Gary McKinnon's case was a bit odd in the way the USA pursued it. But ultimately the Obama administration backed down. As for Rendlesham, Colonel Halt has said a number of times that when he was debriefed before he left the Air Force he was not ordered to keep quiet about the Rendlesham incident.

I think the UFO community are very capable of meddling with any case to make it unfathomable or unbelievable. But I also suspect they are given a helping hand sometimes.

a reply to: ctj83

On another tangent...
I'm sure I've mentioned this before but I'll point it out again because its relevant to your comments about sci-fi and UFOs in the UK.

In the eighties there was a Dr Who story set in Victorian times on a lighthouse on the south coast.

It starts with a fireball (UFO?) Being seen heading for the coast and possibly landing in the sea.
Following this there is a mysterious greenish fog which comes in off the sea.
For some reason our heroes are stranded in the lighthouse and start dying in mysterious circumstances when they go out into the fog.
Eventually the killer is revealed to be an inflated green plastic bag with lots of green and yellowish streamers coming off it. Hats off the BBC special effects department for their depiction of an electro/plasma alien jellyfish thingy.
It isn't trying to kill them, though, its trying to communicate with disastrous consequences for us puny humans.

Here we have
1) A fireball/meteor just like Rendlesham
2) A mysterious fog just like Rendlesham
3) An amorphous globular type thingy with strange properties to its appearance just like Rendlesham
4) injuries from touching the object (the Dr didn't die, of course, he did the telepathy bit which explained the story) just like Rendlesham
5) Don't forget the lighthouse.

Now its not exactly screaming out as a copy of RFI but those elements definitely appear in both things.
I'm trying to find out the title and date of the Dr Who story so it might be possible to see which came first and what, if any, influence it may have had on the subsequent event.

I also noted Halts book appeared on "an auction site" for, I think, £44 odd. It was gone when I looked a matter of hours later. Someone's keen. Bit out of my price range just now.

a reply to: Tulpa

Someone is collecting all the books for research for their own...

a reply to: Defragmentor

I began with Larry's account, and his is still the one that sounds the most plausible to me. After that, Burroughs.

a reply to: ctj83

Yes, I collect them myself.
That one very rarely shows up, being quite recent, but it sure went quick!
I'll end up with a copy one day but I've a more relaxed approach to collecting.
And a much less relaxed approach to blowing that much on a single book.

a reply to: Defragmentor

I believe it was an off duty Burroughs in civvies, who went for a ride on smaller object the night Warren documents.

Also Mirage..... Warren states categorically it was Sodium Amytal that was used , it's apparently, way stronger than Sodium Pentothal and specifically used with hypnosis techniques.

a reply to: Tulpa

I didn't know Halt had written a book?????

a reply to: FireMoon

Yes Larry Warren did say that Amytal was used but I was referring to Penniston who said it was Pentathol IIRC.

Maybe Penniston and I got it wrong?

a reply to: mirageman

I believe Gary McKinnon may have had some kind of help once he'd found his way in and it was this help that was their main target.
I've read some silly stuff that's allegedly from what he found but it was just entertainment.

You are correct, of course, about the UFO community and the propensity for befuddlement within.
Anybody wanting to stir things up a bit would not have a particularly difficult time of it. I can't stress enough how the additional chapters were revealed, I could just picture someone sitting in an office somewhere saying "hmmmmmm, they liked that huh, let's see what they say about this..... Get me Penniston on the phone"

Rendlesham forest seems to me like a petri dish and that "intrusion" was a microscope looking down.

Halt in Woodbridge. An Airforce Colonels thirty year fight to silence an authentic whistleblower

Or something to that effect. I've checked and its available elsewhere for under a tenner. Might get a copy sooner than I thought. Not sure when it came out and I'm not sure who the whistleblower is but my guess is Larry Warren.

a reply to: Tulpa

That's Peter Robbin's critique of Halt rather than a book by Halt.

From the rumours I heard, someone is writing a book in association with one of the airmen and is currently collecting all related material.

a reply to: ctj83

Horror of Fang Rock was the Dr Who story. Written by Terrance Dicks and first broadcast from 3 - 24 September 1977.
Early enough to have been known about in 1980 and a possible influence.

I thought it might've generated a little more interest but I forgot an important point.
When the Dr (Tom Baker) spoke telepathically to the alien blob thing he found out why it was there.
The aliens ship had come down because a part was broken. All it needed was a few parts and a bit of electrical stuff then it could fix the ship and be on its merry way.

Dr Who was popular enough for even non-fans to have seen at least a few episodes and I think anyone who was trying to concoct a cover story for the RFI, or one to put people off more like, may have blended a few of these ingredients. There's also a chance that this idea made its way into the public consciousness, therefore making it easier to swallow when used in another context. Its also fairly logical in its own way.

Maybe I'm trying too hard to find connections but you got me thinking about the sci-fi element. It was an astute observation of yours.

a reply to: Tulpa

I'm going to watch that episode now. Great find!

I couldn't help but laugh when I realised that the alias Art Wallace was also the name of time travel episode of star trek about a time travelling alien interfering with a U.S nuclear weapons platform in the 1960s. i'm guessing Larry Fawcett was responsible for that name.

A few rumours, and other curiosities I'd like to solve:

- Why does Bustinza sound so nervous and unsure on the radio interview? I felt like Warren was helping him along or was not confident in Bustinza's recollection.
- John Burroughs has the worst injuries of the group. With radiation related injuries that means proximity. So it would make sense that Burroughs grabbed a smaller vehicle as Firemoon suggests. That also fits Warren's story. Halt relates the story to Randles et al, but on the wrong night. Burroughs denies it, but it would explain SO much about the event.
- I've heard Halt say that if people knew the truth it would destroy their perception of reality. He also has evidence or proof held back (I'd wager a full unedited tape and notebooks). Yet I've heard a rumour he thought it was the devil. Maybe this is incorrect? If not, how could he changed his mind but still be so certain?

a reply to: FireMoon

Firemoon, or anyone who understands this:

How can a bright object be more easily seen at close distance with peripheral vision at night.

Along with the reports of mist and snowy images, one thing I seem to find again and again, is that the object was hard to make out looking at it directly. It only resolved into a craft when viewed by peripheral vision.

Peripheral vision has only two component that I'm aware of:
- Better night vision response
- Better movement detection to enable us to detect predators

Neither of those should help see a large bright triangle a few feet away in the woods at night.

Warren, and possibly others, got "arc eye" from looking at it.

Peripheral vision should have been overwhelmed not functioned better.

a reply to: mirageman

In my opinion, hypnosis was one of the words elements to be introduced into ufology. It seems to be at the root of most major incidents and causes huge problems. Bennewitz and the cow seen during a woman's hypnotic regression. Penniston, Burroughs and Warren all got outlandish stories from their regressions.

It's interesting to note that "APEN" (not the real APEN I strongly suspect) - sent Jenny Randles a report on Berwyn that talked of hypnosis long before it became popular in UK ufology.

- It was also "APEN" that told Randles RFI was a "Brown Bear" (Downed soviet satellite)
- With Bennewitz,the Starfire range was supposedly able to take over soviet satellites and create a controlled re entry and survivable landing...
- A HOTOL scientist (I want to say Dr Bond) told Randles that the COSMOS re entry data made no sense, and that she should not pursue RFI as people ended up at the bottom of the Thames with these sort of things.

If most ufology covers up experimental cold war craft, and RFI was a cold war related incident, then why do we have people shouting about plasma lift technology, laser controlled satellites and capture on earth?

- Kecksburg - downed satellite
- Rendelsham - downed satellite using controlled re entry technology
- Bennewitz - laser technology to control and retrieve satellite
- Berwyn - Earthquake plus satellite reentry.

So the point of ufology is disinformation to cover cold war technology? Yet the technology described sounds so implausible and impractical versus capturing satellites in earth orbit. Why has no communist power ever complained, caught them in the act or investigated one of these incidents and exposed this satellite stealing technology?

I don't think RFI is as straight forward as an attempt to hide a cold war incident. It actually attracts attention to nuclear weapons issues and satellite technology.

Wild theory:
Ufology = x? + "supposed satellite technology" + key witness hypnosis + fake whistleblowers

originally posted by: ctj83
- Why does Bustinza sound so nervous and unsure on the radio interview? I felt like Warren was helping him along or was not confident in Bustinza's recollection.

Any number of reasons for that:

- I believe it was his first public radio interview. Warren himself commends him in the interview on coming forward into that arena after so long. That cannot have been easy.
- Talking about the incident after so many years, and having a reunion of sorts with Burroughs, Smith, and Warren and opening it up. I think he's tried to put a lot of the events behind him and he even to struggled to remember some names of personnel.
- Seemed overall very reluctant to talk about the bubbles coming off, and possible "entities" therein. It sounded like it’s very difficult for him to come to terms with that possibly having happened (see your last point with Halt: “it would destroy their perception of reality”). Either it was such, or Adrian doesn't want to get into hot water (see next point).
- Going public and corroborating much of Warren's testimony, after being warned in no uncertain terms, "bullets are cheap, a dime a dozen". I think he even mentioned that his family were under surveillance, early on.
- Warren has taken a lot of flack over the years, and Bustinza could maybe have done more to back him up in the intervening years. Question is: why didn’t he? And can we honestly blame him? We can't. It took courage for him to come forward.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: FireMoon
Along with the reports of mist and snowy images, one thing I seem to find again and again, is that the object was hard to make out looking at it directly. It only resolved into a craft when viewed by peripheral vision.

Peripheral vision has only two component that I'm aware of:
- Better night vision response
- Better movement detection to enable us to detect predators

Neither of those should help see a large bright triangle a few feet away in the woods at night.

Warren, and possibly others, got "arc eye" from looking at it.

Peripheral vision should have been overwhelmed not functioned better.

Oddly I sometimes find that with stars I'll see them better out of the corner of my eye than if I were looking directly at them. Aha, this phenomenon is known as "averted vision": oneminuteastronomer.com...

Perhaps if there was a field of some nature around the object (which also caused the strange attraction of their shadows), would looking off to the side provide a better way to quantify it? I don't know though! It's very difficult to rationalise the happenings over these nights, commend your attempts and progress though ctj83! I almost half-think it was all a show put on by ET while they were back penetrating the base.

a reply to: ctj83

If we're to accept that intimidation and surveillance took place then we should probably accept these three claims:

- That Halt told Robbins and Warren that he knew the NSA had tabs on Warren
- That Warren is honest in his claims that he has been shown photos of the craft
- That something of some significance happened

I think there are three things that could demonstrate something of significance happened of an unnatural nature:

- Means: Do we have any evidence of capability to carry out an incursion?
- Motive : Do we have any evidence of strategic thinking?
- Opportunity: Were circumstances favourable?

Means:
I'd suggest that John's injuries are evidence of something generating large amount of radiation and him getting too close. This could not be a totally natural or accidental phenomena. The engineers of the system likely need those emissions for some purpose. Military hardware or men from Mars, why would such massive power generation and loss be part of their system?

Motive:
It's ridiculous to suggest that whatever happened was purely coincidental in arriving for three nights (not days) at the location the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe, possibly the planet!

Opportunity:
The incident occurred at Christmas, at night. Could a better time be chosen if an incursion was to be attempted?

My Best Guess:

The base wasn't a random location. It was a specific target. I'm going to guess that the nuclear warheads were the target. I think the phenomena were a distraction to allow one craft / vehicle or team to get access to the weapons storage area.

Maybe that was Neville's / Halts laser beam. Maybe it just allowed a small team to sneak in and steal a warhead or deactivate one.

Could that be human or alien or something else. I don't see why not.

If there is intimidation it must be because there are further revelations that would cause problems, beyond a weird craft landed, pottered about and buggered off.

a reply to: Defragmentor

Good find on the averted vision. It looks like we both had the same thought of distraction at the same time.

Regarding the shadows, this is something that was one of my first ever posts. I appreciate that this theory does not fit in with what most people think, or what most of my own research points to. However, I try and look at small elements and find a likely explanation, even if they don't fit as a whole.

In that late seventies, computer graphics were just developing. You can see examples in the Last StarFighter, for one. Close Encounters was going to use early CGI, like Tron, but backed out for using lights and lens flares.

Seventies graphics typically used a process called ray casting, as opposed to ray tracing.
Surfaces were largely block colour, and objects geometric in nature.

Processing powered and memory ensured that:
- Low polygon, basic shape objects were all that could be done for film
- Shadows, whilst adding realism were a huge resource hog
- Lighting could not be simulated accurately.

Then, about a year before RFI, patents emerged for a high speed, although less realistic shadow process called shadow mapping. This essentially, is a cheat used by video games to avoid using a ray tracing process to work out if light is blocked (creating a shadow)

It should be noted that shadow mapping would run faster with the following:

- Flat, untextured surfaces to catch the shadow
- Point (spotlight) light sources, instead of realistic ambient light or area lights

Look at what Bustinza and Warren describe:
- Shadows that are sluggish and out of step (a system running in less than real time - like an old console struggling to run a 3d game)
- Shadows with no visible light source to create them (they should have not been sharp spotlight shadows,they should have been soft shadows from the ambient lights as the lightalls had failed)
- A yellow green ball appeared and bounced down the shadows (think of the ball in pong) - this would typically be used in computer graphics to align what a camera was filming and computer was generating. The computer looks at the video image and sees where the green tracking balls are,in relation to where it thinks they are. Calibration.

Whilst I don't think it fits in with anything else these anomalies are just weird:
- Off angle shadows in an unlit environment
- Sluggish shadows that move out of step
- A primitive yellow / green ping pong ball that bounces on the top of the shadows of the men



I work in the special effects industry. If anyone came to me with a film showing these things, I'd consider it an amateur attempt at 'mixed reality' - in other words,a bad CGI projection mapping attempt.

I have zero way to resolve this with my general assessment of the RFI. All I can tell you is, that taken on its own,this incident seems like an early attempt at computer graphics as some form of camouflage not stealth.

Whoever put the system together thought it was better to have fake shadows of the wrong type, rather than no shadows. This was a generally accepted practise during the 80s for film work. Without cues like shadows, lighting angle the flaws of a rendered object would stand out far more.

Does this mean the craft was terrestrial? Maybe not.

The rendering algorithms had just been developed to do everything we see. However, the processing power, and projection capabilities were not ready a far as I know.