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

CJCrawley
Whatever else can be said, the theory that the men mistook the light from the lighthouse for a UFO is surely a non-starter. Anyone based at RAF Bentwaters would have been well aware of the lighthouse...and anyway, why did they only mistake it then, in late December 1980?

Is there any evidence that this lighthouse caused similar UFO sightings prior to this?

And the detailed descriptions of the craft clearly leave no room for this theory.

Whilst I am not saying Ian Ridpath has solved Rendlesham if you actually read (or listen) to what he has to say, the lighthouse is not his sole explanation for the events as I've outlined a few posts above. There were a number of rare celestial events taking place and a satellite rocket returning to earth on Christmas night that 'may' explain parts of the incident.

Also if you look at the detailed descriptions of the craft they all come from one person (Jim Penniston) and have changed over the years in various interviews. His story is now what I would call highly dubious due to his shifting statements. As to why he has changed his story so much may well lead to the real truth behind the incident.

reply to post by mirageman


Okay, Jim Penniston is lying - that would be a sensible explanation (though it doesn't explain why so many people are convinced they saw a craft under intelligent control).

But the idea that the men based at RAF Bentwaters were not aware of the Orfordness Lighthouse, and that they mistook it for a UFO, is not credible.

ImpactoR
reply to post by noeltrotsky

 

^ This is the skepticism and scoffing I highly dislike - doubting the obvious and what shouldn't be argued - that they did not see swamp gas/the light house as a misidentification/ Chinese lanterns... And some think that they are on the right way cause by nay-saying then this must be the truth..

You don't like the evidence I quoted to support my argument that they did not mis-identify?
- years of airforce experience
- a bucket full of trained observers not just one guy
- years of working close to that lighthouse and experience seeing it on a nightly basis.

Sure I am scoffing at the idea that a well known lighthouse confused so many trained airforcemen into writing reports they knew would significantly damage their careers. To me the idea is so far from realistic that it is the same as saying swamp gas was what they saw.

Argue what you want, but don't be upset when someone finds it pretty silly...and provides valid reasons it's silly. Your welcome to challenge the very quick arguments I just presented and find what I'm saying silly.

CJCrawley
Anyone based at RAF Bentwaters would have been well aware of the lighthouse

This is another of the common fallacies of the case. The security guards didn’t know about the lighthouse, by their own admission. You can’t see the lighthouse from East Gate and they had never been out into the forest at night before because they previously had no reason to. Their own statements from the first night tell us that they chased the light for quite some way before they realized what it was. That in itself is a bit of a giveaway.

Col Halt did know about the lighthouse but he thought it lay in a different direction, which is why he didn’t recognize it. Note that none of the witnesses mention seeing the lighthouse as well as the UFO, even though it was the most prominent flashing light for miles around.

CJCrawley...and anyway, why did they only mistake it then, in late December 1980?

Because the 3am fireball made them think that something had descended into the forest. They went out there expecting to find something — and they found a brilliant flashing light between the trees which they could not identify.

Master Sergeant Chandler, who was relaying the transmissions from Penniston to Central Security Control, said in his statement from the first night, “Each time Penniston gave me the indication he was about to reach the area where the lights were, he would give an extended estimated location.” No mention of spending 45 minutes examining a landed craft at all.

Taken together, the statements from the first night give a consistent picture of Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag following a light that proved to be much further away than they originally imagined. Burroughs’s hypnosis session confirms that picture, too.

In short, all the main aspects of the case have rational solutions and there is no reason to expect that, after more than 30 years of looking, anything new will emerge to change that conclusion.
www.ianridpath.com...

mirageman
Whilst I am not saying Ian Ridpath has solved Rendlesham if you actually read (or listen) to what he has to say, the lighthouse is not his sole explanation for the events as I've outlined a few posts above. There were a number of rare celestial events taking place and a satellite rocket returning to earth on Christmas night that 'may' explain parts of the incident.

This is the type of 'shotgun' explanation style that 'scientists' like to pump out for any and all unexplained events. There is a 0.001% chance they mistook a falling booster rocket so that explanation should be seriously considered. Hell the audio evidence from Halt lasts longer than the time it would take that booster rocket to fall to the ground, but the 'scientist' doesn't seem to consider that explanation as completely dis-proven even with HARD evidence of a minimum time this event happened.

Sorry Ian, but from my review of the Rendlesham information your many unrealistic possible answers don't even come close to providing a weak explanation of the event. I don't offer up any crazy ideas as to what happened that night because I don't want to look similarly silly.

reply to post by ianrid


Stop prevaricating Ian and tell the truth for once , you think you can manage that? Halt took Thirkettle to the site of his experience and Thirkettle out right says on camera. "You cannot see the the lighthouse from that location". Or are you calling Halt a liar as well>? When will you amend your site to reflect that now known fact? The truth is Ian, you actually know next to nothing about the Rendlesham case or, you quite deliberately leave out whole swathes of testimony and witnesses because it makes your whole hypothesis look rather pathetic doesn't it?

The facts are Ian, you totally ignore the long history of the area and "strange happenings" , you also ignore how they are still occurring and that, there is still a presence there of unmarked 4x4s that, at times, act quite aggressively towards people visiting the area who are not locals. Your background in the whole subject is truthfully, about as shallow as the gene pool in one family settlement in the wilds of Borneo.

The truth is Ian , you don't actually have any interest in the subject past making yourself look clever and you simply ignore anything that contradicts your myopic world view, do you?. Having failed to make your lighthouse theory stick, you now resort to personal attacks on Penniston without the slightest understanding or empathy, for the situation the poor bloke found himself in. Forget UFOs aliens, humans from the future, Penniston quite obviously suffered a severe trauma mentally that night and his health, to this day, has never fully recovered. Having failed ignominiously to spot a bloke suffering from trauma and the consequent mental fall out form it, you and your ilk now have the temerity to start spouting forth with your cod psychology theories.

As it stands, there are now over a dozen people, both military and civilian, who have stepped forward and said. they witnessed an anomalous group of lights over the forest that night that had absolutely nothing to do with shooting stars, or lighthouses. One local woodsman has come out and plainly stated they saw the lights fly over their own head towards the forest and then stop.

In fact, if you actually knew anything about the subject you so liberally allow others to call you an "expert" on, you'd know that, Penniston's experience is wholly commensurate with other experiences involving multiple witnesses, where something was seen close up. That being that, often people actually standing next to each other, had totally different experiences. If you add to that that Penniston was almost certainly debriefed in such a way as to even further confuse the bloke, then to hang your whole thesis off of his testimony, is not only foolish, it is utterly naive. I doubt Penniston will ever have a true recollection of what happened when he saw that object, if there was an object at all as we understand the term, close up. I think, he thinks he knows and at times, he sees visuals and has memories that seem to be 100% true and yet, as in all similar cases, he has no-one to back him up on the detail. and it could just be a totally false and implanted memory of the events, including the infamous binary code.

Be that as it may Ian, you singularly fail to acknowledge, or even deal with, the welter of evidence from other witnesses that support the very basic story. That, over the Xmas of 1980 a series of strange lights were seen over the bases in Rendlesham and that, the base personnel reacted to it with armed patrols. Lights that had absolutely nothing to do with space debris, meteors or lighthouses.

From the lips of the man himself Colonel Charles Halt.

And also here....

reply to post by FireMoon

The facts are Ian, you totally ignore the long history of the area and "strange happenings" , you also ignore how they are still occurring and that, there is still a presence there of unmarked 4x4s that, at times, act quite aggressively towards people visiting the area who are not locals. Your background in the whole subject is truthfully, about as shallow as the gene pool in one family settlement in the wilds of Borneo.

Would some of these "strange happenings" be from the various UFO groups that frequent this area? Stories of lights flying around with no conclusive evidence or even videos of these lights. What's your 'scientific' determination as to the truthfulness of any of these claims?
Other stories of groups going there and having three-way telepathic messages relayed to them from "entities". Messages saying:

"time meant nothing to the entities... they were worried about military personnel in the forest... they said that there were people who mocked them - didn't believe in them... they only manifested themselves believers... sometimes they were unable to prevent their manifesting, due to Earth's atmosphere and light beams... they said that dimensional wars had trapped them here... they were not here to destroy us - did not live under ground like some people think... they lived on foliage and animal... they wanted the two women only, to walk further along the track to visit them"

Stories of 3-foot tall floating "little monk-like people" in the forest. One such story talking about someone's dog dashing off into the woods and not coming back. The "psychic" wife felt strange vibes, the trees moved and shimmered, then the dog suddenly appears. After which they see these beings floating in the forest.
Is there a limit or barometer of belief to these tales? Or do you take them at face value with the story itself being good enough evidence? As I said, what's your 'scientific' determination as to the truthfulness of any of these claims? You assert "truth" and "facts" in your post several times. I'm curious to your level of study and investigation into truth and facts.

Unmarked 4x4s acting aggressive towards people... Are you suggesting this has some secret government reasoning behind it? What are you suggesting?

Having failed to make your lighthouse theory stick, you now resort to personal attacks on Penniston without the slightest understanding or empathy, for the situation the poor bloke found himself in. Forget UFOs aliens, humans from the future, Penniston quite obviously suffered a severe trauma mentally that night and his health, to this day, has never fully recovered. Having failed ignominiously to spot a bloke suffering from trauma and the consequent mental fall out form it, you and your ilk now have the temerity to start spouting forth with your cod psychology theories.

Did you watch the linked video above? Ian Ridpath only spends 6 or so minutes of a 42 minute lecture, on Jim Penniston. You speak as if the foundation of this incident is based off of Penniston's account, it isn't. If you visit his website, Penniston is not a huge part of the discussion about this case either. Why the confusion?

Jim Penniston is an easy target for "ilks" because of the inconsistencies with the binary code part of his story. You try to write it off and excuse it to mental trauma or confusion because of his briefing. Or try to stay in this wishy-washy cloud of maybe it's true, maybe it's not by way of his trauma. But, he willingly came forward with this portion of his story 30 years later. He lectures and does interviews about this incident as well. If he was so traumatized by this event, why publicly come out and tell this portion of his story? Why not hide from the spotlight? Why tell us he had more of this code to come out? It doesn't make sense. He has single-handedly screwed up his credibility by getting caught up in inconsistencies of his story.

FireMoon
Halt took Thirkettle to the site of his experience and Thirkettle out right says on camera. "You cannot see the the lighthouse from that location".

Sigh... For the fourth time now: Penniston took Halt, Thurkettle (correct spelling) and the SciFi channel crew to a site he had made up, on the side of the forest near East Gate, where the lighthouse cannot be seen from. Halt was as surprised as Thurkettle, because he knew it wasn't his site. Halt's site — the 'real' site — was on the eastern side of the forest, at the location I have previously pointed out to you
www.ianridpath.com...
From that site the lighthouse could be seen easily across the field in front of them, almost in line with the farmhouse, just where Burroughs described the flashing UFO on the first night and where Halt described it on his night.

Oh, and we can reconstruct the route that Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag followed through the forest on Night One, based on their own documentary evidence at the time
www.ianridpath.com...

If it's still not clear to you then I'm afraid there's little more I can do to help.

reply to post by ianrid


Sigh... for the fourth time... You claim to be an "expert" on the Rendlesham incident and yet you are totally unaware that Halt, on Camera, took Thurkettle to the site of his sighting without Penniston and Thurkettle said straight out. "Well it can't be the Lighthouse then" You're so up to date and clued up on the case you aren't even aware that over 18 months ago the main plank of your argument has been shot to pieces? What does that say about one, your own investigative abilities and two, your motives ? Why don't you simply call Thurkettle and ask him and why is that, over a year after the event, you apparently are so "interested" in the "truth" you are still totally unaware of this happening?

I ask again, when will you amend your website to take into account the facts, not the rumours and hearsay and admit that Halt's sighting had nothing to do with the lighthouse. Or are you just as big a charlatan as the likes of Billy Meier and Greer?

FireMoon
Halt, on Camera, took Thurkettle to the site of his sighting without Penniston and Thurkettle said straight out. "Well it can't be the Lighthouse then"

Perhaps you can give us some more detail about this programme, please — when and where it was transmitted, who was the presenter and any other identifying information, including a link to a clip on YouTube, if that’s where you saw it.

Heads up bump: for those of you in the U.S. The History chanel 2 is having a 3 show run of "UFO Hunters" this morning INCLUDING one show on the Bentwaters incident, the other 2 are on Texas Roswell re: the alleged Aurora crash and the last show on Dark Matter on Orbs.

Why? You're the expert, are you telling us that, the so called expert investigator isn't aware of what the person who provided the main plan of your explanation has said? You'll be telling me next, you are also unaware that the Lighthouse has now and always has had, a shield that stops the light shining directly inland? Are you also unaware that Thurkettle was visited by two unknown English men 2 weeks after the incident and before Halt had even composed his memo and asked by them. "Did you see any red lights in the Rendlesham Forest a couple of weeks ago?" The same two people also visited other civilians in the area asking them the very same questions.

Now I have just finished a phone call to a colleague who told me something about Rendlesham a couple of weeks ago. Something I contacted a well respected Moderator on this very site about and told them in private. At the time it was to simply log it with one person I felt I could trust. As it was, as far as i knew a confidence, I wasn't at the time willing to go public with it. However having just spoken to the source of the information I have obtained clearance to pass it on in public.

A couple of weeks ago I had a long conversation with my colleague as they are having a bit of a tough time of life right now. it was one of those meandering conversations that took in any number of subjects and on-line forums came up. I told him that I was on a couple of forums and mentioned this one as the one I mainly inhabit and that, really only in the UFO part.

At this point my friend said.... "Oh my old man told me something, that one in the forest a good few years ago, that really happened as in, something very strange happened"

I asked him..."Do you mean the Rendlesham incident?"

"Yes"; he replied "That's the one, that actually happened as reported and my dad also told me that many of the witnesses were threatened with prison if they said anything about what they had seen".

Obviously, my interest piqued I then asked them. "So how would he know about that?"

"Oh"; my colleague replied, "My old man was spook, a spy, an arms dealer for the British government and he told me it was true when the first articles in the newspapers were published, not years and years afterwards".

Now, lets break it down. His dad told him that witnesses were threatened with prison if they spoke out. Prison would suggest civilians as, if it were military surely, the terminology he would have used would have been. "They were threatened with court martial"?

So, why would a member of the British security services know of the Rendlesham incident and what was the security services involvement.? Then I remembered the episode of UFO Hunters where Thurkettle says he was visited after the events of December 1980 and before Halt had even written the memo, by two British guys who questioned him about had he seen any strange red light in the forest recently.

Now, my colleague has no real interest in UFOs and neither did his dad however, how come what my colleague tells me his father told him when the incident was first made public, seems to square up nicely with what is now known?

That's what real investigations are about Ian. it's not about self promotion and a slightly pathetic.."Oooo look at me, I'm dead clever I am, I know something you don't and you're all idiots for not seeing the obvious". it's about people joining together placing tiny pieces into the overall jigsaw and hoping that one day, that jigsaw is finally completed whatever the outcome might be.

Your whole "investigation" has been based on the premise you are setting out to prove you are right and when anything comes to light that throws a different light on events you simply choose to ignore it. That, in my eyes, makes you as big a charlatan as the likes of Greer and Meier. Ian, you simply cannot be trusted to speak honestly about Rendlesham as you have already decided you know the answer. If you had a true interest in the incident, you wouldn't need to be asking me what documentary Halt shows Thurkettle the site of his experience.



Anyhow, here's the episode of UFO Hunters with Thurkettle talking about being "visited" and the Lighthouse keeper making it 100% clear that, the light doesn't shine inland and never has.

FireMoon
You might like to read this wrote some several years ago.....

Note , sadly I believe the Towmaster link is now dead however, it did confirm that Towmaster were , in effect, Bells Whiskey as well

That thread appears to be alive and well:
www.trucknetuk.com...

It may be interesting to try and contact some of those guys (note the thread itself is a bit out of date), or try some follow-up searches, for instance to corroborate the police safety routine. Google example:

site:www.trucknetuk.com Towmaster +A38

reply to post by FireMoon


I've just watched the video.

There's a lot of talk about this farmhouse on the threshold of the forest, in front of which the UFO is alleged to have appeared.

That must have been a spectacular sight for the occupants of the house, but they haven't come forward as witnesses - or have they?

Do you know if they have ever been interviewed?

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


I would respectfully suggest instead of just dipping in and out of the subject like some dilettante you look through where I have , in other threads on this very subject, gone to great lengths to try and fill people in on the background to Rendlesham as an area of the country, what makes it unusual and the possible reasons why. Ridpath does nothing of the sort and merely seeks to tie everything up in a neat little bundle and anything that contradicts that view is simply ignored. What's more he presents himself a self styled expert and yet, seems to sadly lacking in keeping up to speed on events as they are now known. Well that's perfectly understandable, as they make a rather sorry mess of his given explanation.

As usual in these cases, the "rationalists" seek to portray trained personnel as some kind of bumbling fools who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, whilst they alone, are the voice of "reason". Well here's some news for you, as far as we as humans go, these events were anything bar reasonable, so desperately flailing around trying to stuff them into a convenient box, is merely slipshod "belief led" scientific process.

Science goes where the evidence takes it , no matter how uncomfortable that evidence might make the observer feel about their view of the world. Anyone with their critical faculties actually working properly can see that Penniston and several others have suffered a quite obvious mental fall out from their experience, no matter what the actual source might have been. To try and pretend that it was all the result of a lighthouse, a meteor and space debris is not only naive in the extreme it is also deeply insulting to those concerned. To even broach the subject of Penniston etc appearing on the lecture circuit is hypocrisy of the highest order as they are doing nothing the likes of Ridpath aren't. In fact, Penniston in many ways, has been pretty damned restrained given that, historically, people have had similar experiences have often gone on to start whole religions and cults off the back of such events. if the binary code is the summary of his "magical thinking" then I personally can live with that. That doesn't mean I believe it, it means I understand why the motivations for it and how it fits a known historical pattern, ie the Fatima incident.

For my own part in many ways, I'd love to be able to eventually say "it's all us, we have the ability to make physically manifest things we feel deep in our psyche and these manifestations are so powerful as to be visible to others". The problem is, there's always the other evidence. In the case of Rendlesham, two reports of seemingly almost identical objects in England, in the exact same time frame, doing nothing more than sitting in a field, witnessed by people not primed for anything of that ilk. it's at that point I have to admit to myself. Damn, we could actually be talking about a non human intelligence interacting with us on their own terms and we as yet, are still unable to truly understand what we are seeing.

As it happens, through my work, I, lived in that area of the country for about 6 months and was given the grand tour by several local friends around the various "weird hotspots". One of them was Rendlesham Forest and I was told of a whole list of weird happening including "strange red balls of light seen floating through the trees". That was in May 1980 and friends I still have contact with from the area have told me that locals, even now, still report seeing the "red balls of light" in the forest.

I would, again respectfully, suggest that, if you want cosy pat answers to difficult questions then stick to the likes of Ridpath's site where you can all warmly congratulate yourselves on just how damned intelligent you all are. This site is about proper debate and talking about the difficult facts as they are, not as we wish them to be despite all the evidence to the contrary.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Good question and one I sadly can't answer, maybe others have greater knowledge? Given what Thurkettle says about being "visited" and how that seems to add credibility to what I was told by my colleague, then maybe there is as yet, an untapped source of information on the whole incident ?

Saw this briefly over the holidays but couldn't read it all or jump as it was sad time for my family. It was nice to see Mr. LaPlume and Mr. Ridpath here, but it was REALLY nice to see such an excellently prepared thread, MM! Outstanding work, sir! Thank you.

Having read all 8 pages, I have some entries notated, after reviewing them--if I think I have anything to add--I'll be back to comment.

Great work to most EVERYONE really, I enjoyed the ride.

reply to post by FireMoon

You certainly have an odd aggressive approach to addressing the topic. Especially for someone commenting: "This site is about proper debate and talking about the difficult facts as they are."

I have a few comments and questions for you that you seem to have ignored.

As it happens, through my work, I, lived in that area of the country for about 6 months and was given the grand tour by several local friends around the various "weird hotspots". One of them was Rendlesham Forest and I was told of a whole list of weird happening including "strange red balls of light seen floating through the trees". That was in May 1980 and friends I still have contact with from the area have told me that locals, even now, still report seeing the "red balls of light" in the forest.

So, you're taking these stories of floating red balls through Rendlesham forest at face value, correct? No video evidence or evidence otherwise. Do you use this face value "evidence" to bolster the claims of the incident in Dec 1980? It seems you may, seeing as you made a point about it a post or two back. I'm not so sure of your scientific foundation for that.
Just a personal comment... If this is still happening to this day, as you claim, it would seem logical and fairly smart for one of these people to tape these events. Wouldn't you agree?

I'll ask again about your comment about the unmarked 4x4's. What do you think the reasoning is behind these unmarked vehicles acting aggressively towards people? You pointed it out like it has some connection.

In fact, Penniston in many ways, has been pretty damned restrained given that, historically, people have had similar experiences have often gone on to start whole religions and cults off the back of such events. if the binary code is the summary of his "magical thinking" then I personally can live with that. That doesn't mean I believe it, it means I understand why the motivations for it and how it fits a known historical pattern, ie the Fatima incident.

You're completely dealing in assumptions of his psyche and trying to excuse and write off this portion of the incident because of how weak it is. I'm dealing in the facts of what he has actually said and those inconsistencies. Assumptions vs. Facts.
Do you believe the original version of his story? Walking up to the "ship" and spending 45 minutes studying it and touching the glyphs on the body of the object? If you do, where does your 'diagnosis' of the mental stress and trauma fall in this portion? Do you have the same views where maybe it's true and maybe it isn't? Or do you selectively apply this only to the binary code part of his story?

You'll be telling me next, you are also unaware that the Lighthouse has now and always has had, a shield that stops the light shining directly inland?

The shield blocked the light from sweeping around onto the town of Orford. If you look at the photos I combined below, from Ian Ridpath's website (LINKED HERE), you can see the area of the shield is on the left hand portion of the lighthouse relative to the "UFO" site position. The light would sweep around and would be seen from that perspective before suddenly being cut off by that shield. If you look at the YouTube video below that. It shows Halt's taped conversation in synch with the flash of the lighthouse. So, the lighthouse was involved in the sighting.


------------------------------------

YouTube VIDEO

------------------------------------

CJCrawley
reply to post by FireMoon

 

I've just watched the video.

There's a lot of talk about this farmhouse on the threshold of the forest, in front of which the UFO is alleged to have appeared.

That must have been a spectacular sight for the occupants of the house, but they haven't come forward as witnesses - or have they?

Do you know if they have ever been interviewed?

Hi CJCrawley, regarding your question is here some info about it.
Here is an excerpt from the book “Left At East Gate” .

“March, 1981
The farmer who had made the report to the base on December 30, 1980 is located by Jenny Randles and Brenda Butler but refuses to speak with them”

In this thread are some interesting things said about it by Ronnie Dugdale who studied this case very thoroughly and really knows a lot about this case.

www.facebook.com...