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

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

In some respects I give Penniston some credit for at least not coming up with a message about how we are warlike, polluting our environment, nuclear weapons are bad, we need to reach a higher level of conscious etc.. Then and only then can we link with our space brothers in sweet harmony

Unless of course that message really is genuine?

a reply to: mirageman

Yes, bit of a long shot.
I'd suggested a connection with Denise Bishop only because of the beam.
There's several shots of her in various books I've seen and she looks a bit awkward in most of them (picture a pushy photographer getting her to pose and hold the handle) hence the unnatural position by the door.

The Mirage Men book describes an event over a military base (surprise, surprise) where soldiers pointing guns at a UFO hovering over them had a beam pointed at them which disintegrated a rifle and caused burns to the soldiers hands.
This story is completely false and one of Dotys but has been repeated as fact in quite a few books, including Tim Good.
I always thought that one was garbage but looking back through my string vest memory, I wish I'd made some notes about which books it appeared in and when, exactly, the events were supposed to have taken place. A location would help, too, but as I'd discarded it into the fluff pile, the details escape me.

Point being, was this this first "beam of light" story to arrive on the scene and does it set a precedent to advise extreme caution for any others?

a reply to: mirageman

I'm currently pursuing another report of craft with similarity to Warren's. Right now, I have a number of 'far out' theories. These are very much 'out of the box' thinking, and as starting points for new ideas and aren't intended to cause offence. I'm honestly not sure how much I buy these myself, as a solution, but I can't avoid at least considering them.

1) Something happened that was genuinely dangerous and distressing to the key participants. They agreed to exaggerate key aspects to drive interest and encourage others investigating to uncover, reveal the truth and bring 'justice'.

2) Something happened but far less than we imagine. Each participant experience has largely been overwritten by delusions or brainwashing.

3) UFOs at military bases are a way to save face. Drones are sent to investigate and probe military bases. They are not weapons platforms, or very capable beyond observation and are dressed up to look like rare atmospheric phenomena. Both sides accept this fiction, because to admit that their airspace had been compromised would demoralise citizens and possibly ignite the cold war.

I'm a little disturbed by Warren's 'PS' - it looks quite squashed and the handwriting style is totally different.

a reply to: ctj83

I'll take number three please Bob.
Some of the descriptions fit the bill and the three larger triangles could've been accompanying and monitoring what the little, special one was doing.

Was there a US Navy ship off the coast at the time? The rivalry between the two forces has been a suspect in one or two cases hinted at by Pilkington.
Can we imagine a control room full of sailors glued to a monitor watching the Air Force running round in the woods? A Christmas prank which needed to be covered up? The higher-ups would go nuts if they knew their expensive new toys were being used like that, not to mention the taxpayer.

Somewhere in a drawer on a Navy ship is a video.....

Please keep throwing the ideas out there. We can discuss the merits of each one as we have been doing.

I'd also like to throw something in there that I'd like to know more about.

In ITVs "Strange But True" show on Rendlesham there is a 'false' start to the episode. Radar Operator Mal Scurrah tells of an object picked up on radar in UK airspace. A fighter is scrambled to intercept and reports a very bright light in the sky. Within a few minutes it reached 90,000ft and then disappeared off the top of the radar scope. Unable to keep up the intercept is called off.


See about 2:20 mins in to the video above.

Now Mal Scurrah made it clear after the programme aired that his description related to an event in late autumn (Oct/Nov) of 1980 not the time of the Rendlesham incident. I've always ignored it for that reason.

But does anyone out there know anything more about this UFO incident?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

In some respects I give Penniston some credit for at least not coming up with a message about how we are warlike, polluting our environment, nuclear weapons are bad, we need to reach a higher level of conscious etc.. Then and only then can we link with our space brothers in sweet harmony

Unless of course that message really is genuine?

I say that the message MAY be genuine, but only in its true form, namely:

1) They are from Earth, not space.
2) They are warlike.
3) They like the pollution.
4) They like nuclear weapons.
5) They like that we are easily deceived.

That message fits their observed behavior much better...especially if you also credit them (as I do) with having heavily influenced spirituality and religion.

Not one single alien (or God for that matter) has healed even one paraplegic, restored even one damaged ecosystem or done anything beneficial, when presumably they could snap their fingers and do so.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

My connections not letting me watch just now but from what you described it sounds very similar to the August 1956 radar sighting when two Venoms got scrambled and the radar return disappeared then reappeared behind the chasing plane.

We sometimes have to be wary of editors nasty habits in TV land. They're to blame for many misunderstandings and blatant cockups in the field. They want sensational stories and can't be trusted to stick to the facts.

I need a frowny face with a shaking fist here.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'd just like to add something that I've seen in most of the big cases . 'They' don't project hard power, only soft power and most of the time it's not even that just static or 'brand management'.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'd just like to add something that most of the big cases . They don't project hard power, only soft power and most of the time it's not even that just static or 'brand management'.

Yes indeed.

That's why some people compare UFOs / UAPs with the Archon type entity or the feathered serpent/frog entities which shaman around the planet have seen (i call them space imps).

They are 99% bark and 1% bite big talking deceivers.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

This might seem a bit odd replying to my own post! But if you click the above then it links back to the details about the "Warren Letter".

Here is the actually transcript taken from the book "Left at East Gate"



As Guest101 pointed out it seems very odd what is being reported here. This is nothing like the story Larry tells on TV and radio shows.

That comment :

Ma When I get home I'll tell you the truth about the UFO. I can't in the mail, they read it!

It looks more and more spurious when you take it all in context. Here is Warren a week or so after the incident, being roughed up and allegedly drugged telling his mum about a UFO story but not "the truth" about the UFO in case "they" read it. Given the differences in the hand writing and the fact that it's all squashed onto the final line of the letter I think we can place some doubt on using this as evidence.

There are also some coincidences with what is noted in the letter and the celestial display and a Russian rocket booster falling to Earth as reported in the mid January 1981 edition of New Scientist.

a reply to: mirageman

Why talk about the UFO, then say I can't tell you the truth because they will read this? I mean, aren't they going to read that as well?

I wonder what that PS materially changes, and why Warren supports it as his own if it's not?

a reply to: ctj83

It makes no sense does it?

What are we to make of all this?

The 'Halt' memo shows the wrong dates and compresses the story into the events of one night. Penniston's notebook is conveniently loose leaf and his 'evidence' has grown ever more expansive and in contradiction of ,not just Burroughs and Cabansag's testimony, but even his own down the years. Now we have Warren's letter with questionable content.

It doesn't mean nothing happened at all. But it does cast shadows of doubt.

a reply to: mirageman

It feels like the situation has been engineered to appear more 'alien'?

What if the event really was just one night? What does adding other nights achieve? I don't get that at all.

A little earlier I wondered if stories were exaggerated in an attempt to force 'someones' hand. Now I'm wondering:

- Was the event just one night?
- Has Halt changed his story (telling Butler, Street John climbed the craft for instance?)
- Is the craft Warrens describes the same as AllDayLong and the Meanwood account? Or was the description borrowed?
- Why does Halt not comment on Penniston's Time travel?
- Is the Halt tape real?, edited? Or just fictitious?
- Why does John display EM related injuries?
- Why does Condign reinforce this view?

Thoughts:
- Was the core of the RFI true but is now being used to reveal a pro UAP agenda?
- Is everything to cover up a nuclear powered, Terrahertz emitting drone, searching for nuclear weapons?

originally posted by: mirageman


There are also some coincidences with what is noted in the letter and the celestial display and a Russian rocket booster falling to Earth as reported in the mid January 1981 edition of New Scientist.

The 02:45 fireball only lasted 3-4 seconds and had the brightness of the gibbous moon. This was the only fireball that could have been relevant for the RFI.
The Cosmos debris was never visible in the Woodbridge area and the first fireball was much too early.
Some people may have seen the 02:45 fireball and confused it for the Rendlesham UFO, Larry may have been one of them.

I think Larry’s letter is real but the PS may have been added later.
To me it seems Larry was well connected to the rumour mill on the base. One of his sources was Bustinza.
His report of the first night in the letter is very accurate.

There is an odd sentence in there that I never noticed until I saw your post, Mirageman:

They did find two landing sights [sic] – and supposedly some equipment left behind.

We’ve all asked ourselves the same question: Why did the UFO’s return for two more nights?
Why the ‘grid search’? Why the reports of a landed craft? Why did Bustinza hear Halt say they had to get the ‘parts from another world’?
Why the cover story of a landed UFO and the base commander who helped the aliens repair their ship?

Maybe they did find some ‘parts from another world’ that were left behind on the first night, and the ‘other intelligence’ came back to search for it and to reclaim it?
The cover story is perfect: It closely matches the real events yet sounds completely ridiculous – brilliant.

This also means all attention on this case should be diverted to the first night. Notebooks, binary codes, anything will do.

But of course this is all speculation, since this case has turned into such a mess that we’ll never find out the truth.
Every theory can be countered with some of the jigsaw pieces that were thrown in the box over time.

originally posted by: Guest101
The cover story is perfect: It closely matches the real events yet sounds completely ridiculous – brilliant.

I followed most of your post but I don't understand what you mean by "cover story", is that referring to Halt's "Unexplained Lights" memo or what?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Guest101
The cover story is perfect: It closely matches the real events yet sounds completely ridiculous – brilliant.

I followed most of your post but I don't understand what you mean by "cover story", is that referring to Halt's "Unexplained Lights" memo or what?

No, I’m referring to the story that was spread just a few days after the incident:

However, Brenda did have one USAF witness from the twin NATO air bases (Bentwaters and Woodbridge). He had befriended her and knew of her interest in the paranormal. On 6 January 1981 – only ten days or so after the events – he had confided in her about his alleged involvement in the amazing series of events that hid behind those tales of lights in the sky and holes in the forest.
This witness has always been a huge problem for me. To this day I have never met ‘Steve Roberts’ - as Brenda insisted we call him in our writings. He talked to Brenda but was reluctant to come forward afterwards, even though he was in Britain for several years.

According to Roberts he was one of a security patrol that went out into the forest in response to a UFO that had “crashed” there. Once in the woods he saw a landed craft with strange little child-like beings suspended in beams of light. The overall wing commander – Brigadier General Gordon Williams – was out there in the woods and communicated with these beings using sign language as the USAF guarded the damaged craft. This was eventually repaired by the aliens and took off again.

When Brenda told it to me she could not have known that it matched precisely the story told to the staff at RAF Watton on Monday 29 December 1980. This was when USAF intelligence officers had visited them. That visit was to take away for study the film of all their radar trackings for the preceding weekend. I still have my notes penned from my first conversation in late January 1981 with that operator at Watton.

The radar operator explained how the intelligence officers had described the UFO coming into the forest, the aliens, the contact with the base commander and other details that mirrored the story told to Brenda eight days later and independently by Steve Roberts. But the American intelligence guys also added various other things when talking to Watton. For instance, they told how a commanding officer was taken from a party on base and went into the woods to investigate. His equipment suffered electrical interference but he tape recorded live the encounter with UFOs.

When Barry Greenwood first wrote to me in the spring of 1983 he sent me a copy of Larry Warren’s statement. It was obvious that what Warren had to say was a close match to the stories fed to Brenda (via ‘Steve Roberts’) and to me (via Watton radar and USAF intelligence).

Jenny Randles ‘getting it right at east gate’

In early January, I opened up the gas station for some SP vehicles. One cop stayed indoors to fill out the forms.
He said a UFO had landed at Woodbridge a while back, and that he saw some beings that looked like small children dressed in snow suits/bunny suits.
At that moment the other cop walked in and told him to shut up.

Airman Tony Brisciano, interviewed by Georgina Bruni

originally posted by: Guest101
No, I’m referring to the story that was spread just a few days after the incident:

This witness has always been a huge problem for me. To this day I have never met ‘Steve Roberts’ - as Brenda insisted we call him in our writings.

You mean the ‘Steve Roberts’ story? Do we know who that is? The inference is that's a pseudonym.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arby,

Ian Ridpath covered this way back in 2014 : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Steve Roberts was supposedly a pseudonym used by J D Ingalls or Jay D Ingalls (I'm not sure). Maybe it was spelled Ingles as well. He seems to be the source of much of the early information leaking out having tapped into the rumours from the base.

a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for that link. According to that I'm not sure if "cover story" really applies.

a reply to: mirageman

Random updates:

It's J.D. Ingalls.

It appears that both Halt and Burrough's are working on new books btw.

A while back I mentioned Halt telling the Skycrash authors there was an airman crying in the woods and that an airman climbed the 'craft'.

Well, the crying airman was Bonnie Tamplin. She spoke to Halt after the blue light came through her vehicle.