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

a reply to: Guest101

Good for you in changing the subject onto other things worthy of attention.

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary I look forward to meeting you in real life. I will see you at the talk in the UK.
You can explain it all then.

originally posted by: Gaos0
Believe me, the RFI is toxic, especially when it comes to the witnesses and the people involved

Indeed Gary. I could tell a few stories about that toxicity.

I've NEVER been hindered as much when looking into any other case or issue as I encountered when I had a rather in-depth look into the Rendlesham incident(s) a few years ago. While I got cooperation from quite a few very helpful people (including Jenny Randles, Robert Moore, Brenda Butler and others), a small number of the Rendlesham witnesses/researchers really seemed VERY keen that I not look into a few avenues that I found promising and I was rather taken aback by the steps taken to block my investigations.

I've spent more time on Rendlesham than any other single case (writing a few hundred pages of notes on it and related research), but walked away from it a few years ago - partly because I didn't like the way some people were conducting themselves.

As I recently asked elsewhere : Why has there been so much infighting over this particular case?

I'm used to some rather petty squabbles among researchers/speakers within ufology, but the Rendlesham case really has raised the bar on shifting alliances and back-stabbing...

It's hard to keep track of which people are mortal enemies and which are close friends - the alliances change every few months. It's like a bad soap opera.

I've been tempted a few times in the last couple of years to participate in this thread, partly because I respect Mirageman's detailed research and generally excellent instincts, or to start yet another thread about Rendlesham. Unfortunately, I just think this case is probably too mired in conflicts to be worth spending any more time on.

most people, even the RFI researchers, ... have largely ignored the Binary Code - believing there's nothing to it.

Again, I agree with you that the the general view even among ufologists and RFI researchers is that there's nothing to the Binary Code. I've rarely seen such a consensus in relation to any other aspect of ufology or the RFI.

originally posted by: Guest101
On the third night, the only things seen were just lights. After Larry's letter and Bustinza's last interview I'm pretty sure of that.

You've certainly got me chewing on a lot here Guest101. Some impressive detective work. I watched Halt's tour with Ben Emlyn-Jones and he was quite convinced that Warren was not out there.

I’m still on the fence a bit. I’ll tell you why: Warren is incredibly convincing in his interviews, particularly in that video where he revisits the field, and describes the alleged occurrences with impressive recall and candour. At least Battram and Bustinza have confirmed he was out there, and all have made mention of the strange yellow mist. With regards to the letter, I think if I myself had been going to sell another person’s events (or make a story up), and that letter in any way undermined my position, I would simply never have it in print in Left at East Gate. If it had, and/or were used later as evidence, I’d have painstakingly ensured the print on the P.S. matched the earlier handwriting and/or fit better (e.g. "I can't in the mail, they read it"). I feel like there’s actually a bit of innocence in Warren’s character, everything from the blasé way he’s whistle-blown and tried to get the story out (I mean, good luck!), to perhaps the mistakes in phoning from the base and being listened to and fined, and then the letter. But I accept that’s not evidence, and more of a feeling. On which, I could be completely wrong.

On Bustinza’s changing testimony, I think if you have been threatened, “bullets are cheap, a dime a dozen”, you might clam up, or alter events somewhat, while over time perhaps become more emboldened, and upon reflection, reveal more. This, similarly, with coming to terms of the phenomena witnessed. He might not have mentioned beings in bubbles coming off the side of the craft to begin with, but over time . . .

On this case and its third night though, I just have this inner, nagging feeling that there’s more meat to the third night, after Halt’s sighting with the beam shining down. There are still questions. At what point was Burroughs out there allegedly clinging onto a small object? Did Bustinza later split from Halt’s group? When did the yellow mist appear (much later, also witness by Battram—who also says Warren was out), and was there or was there not a craft in the Capel Green field (trace cases of which Robbins has had analysed).

a reply to: Marylongstockings

I will not be attending, I am far too busy. I am also collaborating with Robert Bauval on another project - which relates to the field of study that I was researching before I got involved with the code. However, I will say that what I found in the code has inspired me and has helped me discover things that my previous research was leading to anyway. You could say that the coordinates in the code had personally assisted me in these new discoveries.

a reply to: Gaos0

And there he is!!!
I was going to make myself look foolish by making predictions about secret passageways, hidden chambers, alien artifacts, a new world paradigm and the return of the great Nine Gods....and all that millennium tripe.

You can't mention Giza without him, really.
Bauval has no credibility with me.
I think he's being used or "steered" if you like.

When Giza first came into it with the binary codes I thought of the previous attempts to get the Nine insinuated into public consciousness.
If they're coming back and they're really "gods" then I'd advise them to find some better publicists and stop messing around with UFOs and such.
There's got to be easier ways to start a new cult.

I trust you will forgive my sceptical tone but things are starting to sound a little too familiar for my comfort.

a reply to: IsaacKoi

Hi Isaac,

I agree, and we are on the same page about the behaviour of some of the people involved and how draining it can be. I am not worried about it really. As is often the case, too many people assume things and shoot their mouths off without knowing all the facts. And then there are the games people play to get attention or a reaction; stirring things up – even to the point where they don’t even care about the likely possibility that it could come back and bite them on the backside – as long as they get a reaction. As for the Binary Code, yes, when it comes to something really important - and this is how I now view the code, as it has led me to discover the answers to things I was already researching - the multitude often look in all the wrong directions first.
Thanks for your comments Isaac, and please reconsider completing your work and publishing it.

a reply to: Tulpa

Religion is too contested.

If the intellectuals of the race can be suckered into a science fiction variant, then top minds can be controlled.

All the sheep have already been captured with existing forms of meme control.

You can kidnap an entire lifetime away from an intellectual or pseudo-intellectual with the power of woo.

That's not saying whether some of the woo is valid or not---that's not even the point.

Kev

a reply to: Tulpa

That's all OK Tulpa. You are welcome to your own opinion and believe what you like.
Robert is a dear friend, we have discussed a great deal (other things aside from the binary code) and I trust his views. I understand the connections you are making, as my own timeline of events - i.e., the synchronistic associations I had with certain people leading up to my involvement (people who are either directly or indirectly involved with the RFI) often have me making the same connections. They are there when you begin to focus too much on the possibility that they are there, is all I am going to say.

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary, I don't mean to be rude...

But I think that the "binary codes" are considered to be a major part of the toxicity.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Hi Kev,

In the respect that the subject is highly controversial with some people not wanting to know that the code actually contains something significant and will respond negatively and even emotionally to it, I agree with you, but people really don't know what the code contains.

The seven sets of coordinates found within the pages of Binary Code received by Jim Penniston during his experience in 1980 (Boxing Day morning) as claimed, are themselves a code that needs to be approached a certain way to retrieve another level of information. The initial information that emerges could be described as "homogeneous" in the way the parts (coordinates) all fit together via the same key to produce a "bigger picture".

This "picture" is unmistakably familiar to many of us and doesn't require interpretation. It's there, it's obvious, and is as factual as 2 x 2 = 4, which proves the results were intentional and not something that we are just seeing because we want to see it, like "faces in clouds" (pareidolia or apophenia) and certainly not "projected" or "cherry-picked data", as someone who should know better has recently stated.

Also, the deeper we go into studying this "picture", we find things that are more ambiguous, and this is where interpretation does indeed come into it. However, the information is so cleverly devised we also find that it is multi-leveled in respect of the further meanings and associations we can derive from it - all of which can be seen to correlate with the initial information that emerges, and is pointing to something specific.

The initial information formed by the coordinates in the RFI message remains invisible until you know the "key". One is reminded of the scene in the movie, "Contact" (1997), where the pages of primary numbers were totally transformed into a 3-dimensional cube when the cipher to unlock the code was given to Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) by S. R. Hadden (John Hurt). It was the only way the code could be read properly.

a reply to: Gaos0

As to who devised it, that's for the researchers of the RFI to determine (and I have my own theories), but at the moment, the researchers - the UFO entertainers - are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike . . . too busy promoting themselves and doing conferences that really have no impact in terms of upgrading our understanding, but supplements their income.

a reply to: Gaos0

How many pages where there Gary, REALLY

a reply to: Marylongstockings

WERE there?
16 pages in total, and you know this. Please don't spin that same old issue of yours about the number of pages. With what Jim explained to me, I can see that this issue has been blown way out of proportion.
In any case, the seven coordinates are what I focused on, as was asked of me.

a reply to: Gaos0

Hi Gary, appreciate you dropping in. Personally, I don't think that binary is a suitable message medium when paired with ASCII. hexadecimal would make more sense than binary, and Unicode for the text encoding. However, a more important issue is why are the coordinates those from TeleAtlas?

Whoever got those coordinates got them from TeleAtlas - which, as Guest explained, like any mapset will have unique coordinates on the final digits.

With the greatest of respect, why does this glaring problem not bother you, in terms of the provenance of the coordinates? Do you truly believe that the source of the codes decided to use that mapset and then used military precision coordinates for some of the coordinates?

I'm assuming that during your five years of research - you encountered the TeleAtlas source and found an answer that makes sense?

I'd greatly appreciate any answer or clarification you could bring to this.

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary,

I'm a master of Kung Woo myself...I've spent more than 50 years on a combination of genuine science and all manner of woo research.

If you step outside of yourself and look at yourself neutrally..wouldn't you say that your words sound more like a Dan Brown novel than something to be taken seriously?

I'm not heckling you...

I'm asking.

Kev

a reply to: ctj83

No, it doesn't bother me because I have never been too concerned about this having been devised by an all-too-human agency, if that's what it indeed it turns out to be. I say this because the results have not only provided some answers to the things I was already researching but also cross-correlates well with the data found in other independent sources - even leading me to make several new discoveries. So, personally, what I have found in the coordinates has proven useful.

I have been accused of "cherry picking" the data by one of the primary witnesses - but he would say that, as he is now out to debunk the code as he no longer plays any part in it, having fallen out with Jim.
Math doesn't lie. You can't 'cherry pick' the answer of 4, to 2 x 2, and that pretty much expresses the nature of the information we are talking about here. Anyone could repeat the methods I have used to determine the information in the code, and he or she will arrive at the same conclusions. The findings of the code are now complete and we will see if I have "cherry-picked" or not.

But, no, I am not bothered by that . . . that may seem strange to you, but you are not me and you haven't decoded it.

a reply to: Gaos0

Hi Gary, it doesn't seem odd to me, I was genuinely curiosi and your answer makes perfect sense.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yes, I can see why you would say that Kev . . . but remaining 'neutral' and detached as best I can is the way for me.

a reply to: Gaos0

I see , well perhaps you should enlighten the public to what Jims explanations are then. Simples.
I mean he told me 13 pages. He even wrote and told me that.
He then says 13 pages on his formal web site. I alerted you to that and it was changed to 16 pages
as it had been decided there was suddenly 16 pages. Even the public could not get a straight tale.
So why cant it be explained, then end of that, nothing more to it.