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

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Tulpa

Halt and Burroughs have been talking to each other since at least the UK / Aspel documentaries. I feel Anything that has been held back in confidence will be used.

Well Halt and Burroughs appeared on the ITV "Strange But True" documentary on Rendlesham in 1994 and before that in Unsolved Mysteries (c.1990) . Both also feature in the 21st century productions for History Channel "Britain's Roswell" (still occasionally shown on H2 on Sky and easily found on Youtube). However Burroughs has said a number of times how Halt has tried to keep him out of documentaries by various means. I don't think you see them together discussing anything in those documentaries.

Burroughs has done a number of radio shows with Colonel Halt. But the atmosphere was particularly prickly on occasions.

Especially on this show : Podcast UFO

I would agree that they don't ignore each other. But I think John feels somewhat let down by the Colonel. Halt also seems to be irritated by Burroughs obsession with the case. So the relationship between them is 'awkward'. We'll have to wait and see how things unfold.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: mirageman

Hopefully these new books aren't going to be as hard to find for obsessive collectors like myself.
I'm sure quite a few others out there will be out looking to spend...what?...£12?
Times three...
The kerching sound should be quite loud somewhere.

Will we get value for money?
Clarification?
Sounds like it could end up being a tit for tat fest if you ask me.
Whoever sells the most gets to be "telling the truth" and wins the next round.

Might I suggest that any other bookworms who get their hands on the first copy of whichever one arrives first, give us all a nod before we rush out and buy?
They may need to prop up their Air force pensions with book sales but there's enough costly clutter on my shelves as it is.

Can't really say I'm looking forward to much more reading from them.
Unless, of course, one of them comes clean.

I would not spend one penny on a book about binary codes.

For those of you who are not that much into binary codes, here’s a piece that appeared on the old Rendlesham Forum, explaining why Jim’s binary code is not as mysterious as it seems.

First of all, binary numbers are just that: numbers. Nothing special about them. The only reason they exist is because our computers are preferably constructed with low-cost electronics.

We, as humans, happen to have 10 symbols to express numbers (0...9), simply because we have 10 fingers.

Our computers, however, are handicapped: They only have ‘two fingers’ (0…1), because it is cost-efficient to produce electronics that is based on two states (high or low voltage).

Because of the low-cost electronics in computers, we are forced to use binary numbers for them.
Binary numbers are no more ‘universal’ or ‘mysterious’ or ‘mathematical’ than decimal numbers.

In fact, binary numbers are a disaster because they tend to grow very rapidly in size. That is why we need a lot of memory in our computers to handle all these 0’s and 1’s. Further, binary numbers are almost impossible to read. The only advantage is that you just need two symbols (0 and 1 for instance) to write down a binary number.

So Jim’s binary message is simply a series of numbers.

If we assume that each binary number in his message has 8 digits (they are grouped in chunks of 8 ‘bits’), the message consists of 114 numbers in total: 69 88 80 76 79 82 65 84 73 79 78 79 71 72 85 77 65 78 73 84 89 54 108 217 193 137 129 129 169 145129 201 161 145 169 153 …etc.

So how do we get the final English message? Simply by using a lookup table constructed here on Earth.
Computers can only work with numbers, so IT engineers made an agreement in the past on how to represent our alphabet and other printable characters with numbers. This agreement, represented in the so-called ‘ASCII table’, makes it easier to interchange files with human readable text between computers. (Note that the ASCII table is already old and is now often replaced by the Unicode table that can also encode foreign characters).

So these IT engineers simply agreed which number would represent which character. Number 65 is an ‘A’, 66 is a ‘B’, 67 a ‘C’, etc. If we use this ASCII table to look up the characters belonging to the numbers in Jim’s message, we get the English text.

Now why would someone pass an English message to a human being using numbers from an ASCII translation table made here on Earth? And then make it even more difficult by using the binary instead of the decimal representation for these numbers?

Some people speculate that the numbers in the binary message may not represent ASCII characters at all, but something else. Some other code or message that is hidden in all these bits.
However, the odds that some other code would accidentally also yield whole English words in ASCII are astronomically small.

Of course you could speculate that the Creators of the Code were brilliant enough to hide some other Message underneath what appears to be a message in ASCII, but …

1. The first coordinates in the message correspond to the last decimal to the Google Earth Woodbridge coordinates from a Tele Atlas map from 2009/2010. For different map makers, the coordinates of a town centre will differ in the last three decimals because a map maker has to select a square foot somewhere in the middle that represents the town centre, and every map maker will select a different square foot.
A total of six digits (there are two coordinates, so 2x3 digits that match) exactly match with Tele Atlas – a one in a million chance. Note that in 2009/2010, Tele Atlas provided the map data for Google Earth…

2. The message contains a common spelling error (COODINATE instead of COORDINATE – the ‘R’ is missing).
In binary this means exactly 8 bits in a row that correspond to the ‘R’ are missing in an otherwise perfect sequence of 80 bits:
COODINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101
COORDINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01010010 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101

So even if a binary message was conveyed by some Superpower, what are the odds that exactly these 8 bits did not come through – the same bits that represent a common spelling error?

So the only sensible conclusion is that this message was constructed by someone who had access to the internet, a Tele Atlas map, and who occasionally made a spelling error. Now who could that be …?

a reply to: Guest101

a reply to: Guest101

So the only sensible conclusion is that this message was constructed by someone who had access to the internet, a Tele Atlas map, and who occasionally made a spelling error. Now who could that be …?

Sam Beckett "Quantum leaping" from the future to pick up an old ZX81?

Quinn Mallory sliding in and out of view in the Suffolk woods.

Dr. Who quietly searching for dogging venues in East Anglia before priming his sonic screwdriver?

Jim "pants on fire" Penniston whilst penning his future hit single?

a reply to: Guest101

Must have taken him ages to write these sequences down in his notebook.

Oh the frustration to see he made a spelling error in the end ...

a reply to: Guest101

01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110011 01100001 01111001 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100101 01101110 01110011 00100000 00101110 00101110 00101110 00100000 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100101 01101110 01110011 00100000 00101110 00101110 00101110

Sorry, couldn't help it ...

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

The binary code was possibly the oddest choice to add to the RFI. It creates all sorts of legitimacy issues that are much harder to question if you just saw or touched the craft.

It seems even more odd, that Penniston would be the one to claim Burroughs is seeding disinformation for the CIa?

a reply to: mirageman

Burroughs has just announced he has delayed the next RFI phenomenon radio show, pushing it back to next month. The reason? Him and Dugdale need to verify new information about the RFI that has just come in.

It's hard not to believe it relates in some way to Penniston and his story after he launched a premeptive attack on John's narrative.

a reply to: ctj83

I try to keep an open mind, but to me the binary code absolutelt screams to be fake. It's the most inefficient error sensitive way of communication between non-machines.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

I agree and the fact there is an actual 'written down' code and symbols means that Penniston is putting his neck out far further than any of the others.

It's inevitable, in my opinion, that by claiming that Burroughs is essentially a paid disinformation source, he's made himself a target.

The irony is, Warren probably has the most stable story - with no injuries or binary code 'evidence' to trip him up.

Burroughs has either planned or been forced into exposing Penniston. It will be interesting to see which. I cannot believe that both will come through this with their own narratives unscathed...

a reply to: ctj83

It most certainly will.
I became interested in this case through the news, Skycrash and then the usual TV and documentary appearances of the three main characters.
Skycrash was a little confusing and its hard to keep tabs on things when the case gets featured in so many UFO books.
Each writer has treated the case with their own personal views and, as we all know, the witnesses themselves can't even keep the story the same.

LAEG was totally new to me so, you've probably guessed, I've gone from one side of pendulum to the other and now I'm wavering in the middle.
I've also avoided the internet for many years for reasons of my own so a lot of the stuff linked in this thread was also new.

Never got hold of You can't tell the people.
Friend or for by Jenny Randles didn't help much, either.
I suppose my rambling point is that three new books , at this stage, may only really help to entrench the views of different sides depending on which "character" they prefer.
I'll end up tracking them all down eventually but how many others are going to go and get all three?
After all the hostilities and accusations, are the books for our information or are they being put out so they can take snipes at each others stories while trying to bolster their own.

I don't follow Facebook but for those who do, it may be fun to check their pages the day each book hits the shops. I think that's where you'll find out if its worth buying.

a reply to: ctj83

The irony is, Warren probably has the most stable story - with no injuries or binary code 'evidence' to trip him up. Burroughs has either planned or been forced into exposing Penniston. It will be interesting to see which. I cannot believe that both will come through this with their own narratives unscathed...

Well Larry's story has been criticised by many. On the old Rendlesham forum John Burroughs even took him on directly. One was about claims he (John) had climbed onto a craft out in the field on the 3rd night. At first Larry denied ever saying it and had only heard the story second hand. But John trumped him by mentioning the video (he also mentions it in LEAG). That video is somewhere back in this thread. Then Larry backtracked.

I could give more examples but will leave it there because Larry has also claimed the retina's of his eyes were burned whilst at Bentwaters and a burning sensation and bleeding through the skin on his neck and back a few years later. Something the doctor advised was a problem caused by exposure to an unshielded nuclear device. Although I think he has a medical certificate for it.

Is his story stable? I think it's more a case of not being the main focus at the moment.

Penniston has been pumping out 'evidence' for 20 years now. The plaster casts, the glyphs, the binary code and even his beloved notebook are all suspect 'evidence'. But look how much of a problem it causes. Even if Burroughs or someone else blows Penniston's story completely out of the water it's been 20 wasted years considering his 'evidence'.

a reply to: mirageman

Sorry Mirage, I should have been clearer. By stable what I really mean is, his story has been picked apart for years. The problems with it are evident, but there is nothing concrete to pull apart.

John could have the evidence of his injuries used against him. Penniston could have the notebook used against him.

I guess I should have said, Warren's story is the only big one that doesn't have some form of tangible or official documentary evidence.

So - it's Burroughs V Penniston V Halt. There isn't anything ew to use against Warren

a reply to: ctj83

His UFO letter to mum is one of the more up to date reveals that looks slightly suspect. Low key I'll admit.

But I take your point. He's had his day in the spotlight. The big three are lining up for a shot now.

Let's get ready to rumble....................

a reply to: Tulpa

Each writer has treated the case with their own personal views..........

I've also done the same in this thread (as have others) but hopefully it's clear when I'm giving an opinion? I've also tried to balance anything out with an opposing or alternative view.

Yes I think back in Oct 1983 when I saw the News of the World headline I thought it was probably 'aliens'. However I've long realised that almost any UFO case (and much of the paranormal) relies on "disproving the negative". The debate usually starts with "I can't explain it so it must have been aliens/ghosts/bigfoot etc. Unless someone can prove it wasn't......". Sometimes spiced up with a large dose of government conspiracy to conceal the truth. That's not really a good way to explain things.

......three new books , at this stage, may only really help to entrench the views of different sides depending on which "character" they prefer.
I'll end up tracking them all down eventually but how many others are going to go and get all three?

Burroughs book may be the most interesting as he often plays his cards close to his chest . He rarely embellishes his story and may also reveal a bit more about the damage to his heart.

Halt will probably churn out another attack on Airman Warren. Although he may surprise us and reveal everything! And no I don't mean a full frontal in the centre pages.

As for Penniston and his book "11111111 - No More Zeroes Any More". Well I guess you know what I think of his story by now and I will certainly not be rushing to buy it!

I have sort of got to a point now where I feel like I'm following a badly written, inconsistent soap opera with Rendlesham and the UFO/weird side has almost become the sideshow. I'm half expecting Colonel Halt to reveal to Larry Warren that he is really his father., that someone thought dead (maybe General Gabriel?) will turn up with the secret tapes. Or we'll even find out that Jim's binary codes was nothing more than an unknowing American's attempt at the football pools and how he actually won a £million but forgot to hand the coupons in for 30 years!

In fact from a purely psycho-social point of view I think that's why I still follow this story.

The only thing we can be pretty sure of is that lights were flipping around in the forest on night three. This is something all witnesses seem to agree on, including a civilian witness:



Nevels, Ball, Halt, Burroughs, and Bustinza were all amazed about the silence and manoeuvrability of these lights.

I wonder if Englund will ever go public…

a reply to: mirageman

As I expected, from Penniston:

I agree 100 percent with you Linda, we are in a position with the manuscript writing and Gary’s five year research with the binary, that simply the Facebook, UFO circuit speakers, UFO Opportunists and Entertainers chatter which goes on unabated, is irrelevant to us and the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Maybe they have only fear of what’s coming in the book.
After all, Gary and I are co-authoring the definitive book on the Rendlesham Forest Incident; and what has been the enigma for some as the binary code. Full disclosure on Rendlesham is coming, hopefully by the end of the year.
Now in the writing phase of where I am delving further into the ‘after story,’ as never before has been presented to the public before; starting 72 hours after the event, running from December 1980 to present. This will cover all aspects of the ‘cover story’ given by the USAF, and how the cover story was executed. This part will also deal with all aspects regarding the people who have helped execute the ‘cover story’ – the false narrative which was put out as a containment action. More importantly, the ‘after story’ will also include the government agencies still involved with Rendlesham.
No one will be spared in the telling of this definitive book on Rendlesham. The people deserve the truth, and this is the reason for writing it. Every effort will ensure the public hearing of this account, and it will be done responsibly and thoroughly.

a reply to: ctj83

And what have the others got to say about their books?
Thanks for posting Penniston words. It'll be something to refer back to after I've read the book.
I guess they'll all claim their stories are true (really) but there'll be another ton of discrepancies to separate.
Leaves us back at square one.

a reply to: Tulpa

Burroughs is simply promising to expose Penniston's claims, in the next Phenomenon radio show, in early June.

I believe Ronnie Dugdale is writing the Burroughs book.

2010, Jim Penniston:

John Burroughs and I, are in contact with other key witnesses. We know there are some discrepancies with some of the past reports. We do understand why, and have talked over dissemination of the facts. Our decision is, we have jointly decided on a course of action which will put this to bed once and for all. John will be posting a joint statement on this course of action. Information to help resolve this case will be forth coming in the future, at our time schedule.

Jim Penniston, six years later:

Gary and I are co-authoring the definitive book on the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Full disclosure on Rendlesham is coming, hopefully by the end of the year.

Hollow words …