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

a reply to: Gaos0

Gary, so you are saying John is now out to debunk Jim??

Is this because he has found something within the notebook which he is about to discuss
on the radio show?

a reply to: Marylongstockings

I have repeatedly answered this question, and this is what I mean by you going around in circles. I have said that you need to ask Joe, or Joe will have to answer you himself - and I think he did through me, as I remember a few years ago.
Again, Joe Luciano, who deciphered the binary code string, was the person who received the photocopies of the 16 pages. He received the first 13 pages first, and then later he received the last three. As to why Jim held back the last three for a time, he did tell me, but this is for Jim to answer.
I have only been concerned with the first 13 pages anyway, and especially page 6 to 13, as those contained the six sets of coordinates I was sent by Jim initially on 3rd Feb 2011.

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Why don't you ask John? . . Oh, that's right you can't, because you have fallen out with him too. So typical of this case.

a reply to: Gaos0


Not right good is it :/

a reply to: [post=20799041]Gaos0[/postFE

Feb was a very interesting month and yes, I know there is more to those last three pages, or
would never have brought them up to begin with.

a reply to: Gaos0

Just to follow up - I hadn't assumed you considered a human origin for the coordinates. I appreciate you taking the time to answer as well.

I'm assuming that Jim's statement that John was not injured at RFI, is one that will not be included in the book. It seems to me, with VA and DOD acknowledging his claim then John has precedence for some sort of legal action if he wished. I do know that UK and US law differ somewhat though.

I'm very interested as to your 2+2 suggestion, I do hope I'll grasp that.

For what it's worth, whilst you might find some people a little edgy here, it's worth considering that as a researcher and author, with a commercial interest, you should be comfortable to defend your work, or that it can empirically defend itself.

I hope you'll take this in the nature it's intended, there seems to be a note of defensiveness from you towards almost any question. I don't think that you need to be on the back foot beyond clearly stating your thoughts, evidence etc.

a reply to: ctj83

Hi ctj,
I can understand why you see me as being "defensive" - or a little "edgy?" I guess you see that in the exchanges I'm having with "longstockings," but that would be understandable if you knew the story behind that one.

As for the issues between Jim and John, I really can't comment on that. Again, that's Jim's corner, as it were.

When I say 2+2, I mean that the information is geometrical, mathematical and therefore obvious it was intentionally devised - meaning I'm not "cherry picking" the data.

Yes, I'm quite confident in what I have found and therefore comfortable in discussing it all to some degree. I am really not interested in any commercial success that might come out of it, which is why it will be six years when the findings will be released IF the book comes out this December, which is what we are aiming for.
While on the subject, I would like to take the opportunity to say something about the general attitude of the skeptics about the code and the things that have been aimed at Jim and I.
If I was interested in commercial success or financial gain - which, believe me, is not the reality when you are writing a non-fiction book - then I would have rushed a book out years ago and would be doing conferences like they were going out of fashion. This is the same with Jim. In fact, we have both turned down radio interviews and conferences recently. We are not interested in being part of the "UFO entertainers" crowd. I say this because we have both been accused of just wanting to make £$ out of this, which is ludicrous when you have worked as many hours as I have on it. I do it because of my own interest in these subjects, and as I said, personally it provided me with the answers to things I was already researching. I think the fact that Jim and I have both been quiet over the last few years, speaks volumes on that score.

a reply to: Gaos0

Again, much appreciated on the response.

I'm assuming "Mary" isnt actually Mary and there is a troubled history there.

a reply to: [post=20799262]ctj83[/pos

Marylongstockings is the ATS name I gave myself obviously not a real name

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Also anything you wish to know re my side of what I know can be found here.
Not a secret at all.


www.facebook.com...

a reply to: Gaos0

Hi Gary.

I wrote that appraisal two years ago. Obviously you've updated your website since then. All I'll say is that I felt the style of prose was too difficult and lost interest rather quickly. Maybe you were drafting at the time? First impressions hey?

But this thread isn't about me or you. So let's leave it there and see where it now takes us.

One thing

I am intrigued by who or what you think is the real origin of those codes though. Because if we go back to the very first mentions of the story Jim Penniston said he never reached closer than 50m to whatever he thought was a 'craft'. So what's going on?

a reply to: mirageman

In 2010 Jim needed to go back to Rendlesham
He did not receive the full transmission.

There is much more to all of this.

Whilst Gary is doing his decoding, it is only the tip of a very large iceberg.

I wont say any more now.

I just thought I would mention this .

Hi mirageman,

No hard feelings. We can happily put that behind us, and thanks for your friendly response. Right, as for what you say, that's from the "official" witness statement - said to have been written by Jim Penniston.

The following is taken from 'The Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident with witness, Jim Penniston,' Alternative Thinking Radio Show with Jeremy Bennett. BlogtalkRadio. Aired: 30 September, 2014.

Jim Penniston said that on the Sunday following the incident, he got a call from one of the Sergeants, telling him he will have to report to the OSI building the next day and that he will have to write a statement. Penniston replies with “OK.”
The following morning, Penniston is notified that he and the other witnesses are to also attend the Base Commander’s office after the meeting at the OSI building. Penniston then goes to the OSI building where the agents tell him it would all be over after he had put all the information down on paper. They then have him write out a statement.

“What I did was, I did a sanitized version of the happenings. I kept it down to colored lights; minor activity, er, didn’t use certain words intentionally such as ‘craft’.”

Penniston says that his original statement ran to four pages. After he completes it, it is taken from him and he then has to wait for them to type it up. After fifteen minutes they then come back and present him with a typed statement. Penniston tells us that what he has in front of him are not the four pages that he had written on legal paper, and that the statement is now a quarter to a half page of typewritten text. He then reads it, saying that this is not what he had written. The OSI agent who had given the typed statement to Penniston then says, “This is the statement made during the investigation of the OSI and other agencies and if anyone asks you, this is the story you will tell.” Penniston then says, “OK, no problem.”

a reply to: Gaos0


So are you saying Penniston IS the origin of the binary codes and that not only Cabansag's witness statement was probably "cleaned up" but likely all of them were?

originally posted by: Marylongstockings

In 2010 Jim needed to go back to Rendlesham
He did not receive the full transmission.

There is much more to all of this.

Whilst Gary is doing his decoding, it is only the tip of a very large iceberg.

Yes, many pages of binary will follow…

In other words, it's possible that the code Jim Penniston was given on the night of Christmas Day, December 25th and the morning of December 26th 1980, was a "seed" which was "planted" at the beginning of a Timeline which would later include other people who have and will become involved; people who have been "equipped" with the right kind of information, knowledge and approach to properly decipher the codes. What we learn from the codes could possibly initiate a paradigm shift - the codes assisting us in making the positive steps towards the kind of transformation that is now in play; a New World Order based on a Meritocratic system that is necessary, not only for our own survival, but also for us to join the 'intelligent' universe.

If so, then the code and all it conveys, along with the connections that can be made with it as outlined on this page, could be viewed as a "Christmas gift" to mankind and possibly by the same intelligence that instructed mankind thousands of years ago and which led to the formation of the oldest secret society, the illuminati - the hidden but enlightened, intellect of humanity.

Source: Gary’s site

a reply to: Guest101

This grandiose format follows the usual "alien channelers" playbook. -Barbrady

Kev

a reply to: [post=20799804]Guest101[/
A Xmas gift to mankind???
But Jim told Ronnie Dugdale it was only meant for a few.
In fact there's some stuff on the Joiner show re all of that.

I mention 2010 because that's what Jim wrote and said.
It does not mean I am in agreement, in fact I question many things.

a reply to: mirageman

Yes, it looks that way, but I'm not investigating this side of the story, my focus is on the coordinates from the code. I have decided to leave all that to the investigative researchers. It would be far too much work for me.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Kev, that is merely all conjecture based on the connections I was making at the time - i.e., the 'symbolic' aspects, which I felt also needed to be noted, and I say that's all it is. My understanding as to why the code was devised has gone a lot further since then. I haven't done anything with the Website for months - even years with some of the pages - so it all needs updating.

a reply to: mirageman

Meanwhile...back at the base...
According to the John Alexander book the sightings (plural) continued throughout January.

An unnamed woman, married to someone on base, produced a short film of one of the sightings. Apparently, some of the dependants (his word, not mine, sounds odd but I'm guessing Airforce wives?) decided to follow up on the sightings and this is where they got the film.

My questions about this are

Were these sightings of the same objects seen on the main nights?

Why was a rather amateur sounding group doing the following up?

What exactly is on their short film and what happened to it?

Sorry if I've missed this being dealt with elsewhere. I'd heard that during the main nights, there was a suggestion that someone had taken along a wife and child for some "sightseeing" but didn't know about this follow up group during January.
Could these two things have been confused in the earlier reports, possibly?

Also its mentioned again that one of the sightings in January was of a cylinder shaped object the size of an aircraft carrier.
I'm pretty sure someone would've made quite a fuss about that but no date is given so its going to be tricky finding out more.

Maybe there's more reports of a similar object elsewhere around that time.
I'm interested but still can't help feel like getting drawn further away from the main three nights again.