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

a reply to: mirageman

Hi, To be very clear re this element to others who ask. The book creation or pending book
is a direct result from Jims dreams of 23.5. One can go back into these posts
about all of that. It was because of the alleged dreaming that Jim claimed and told me about
which led to where we are today. I had known Gary many months before knowing
Jim and was familiar with his research. It was at my suggestion that Jim connected
with Gary as I felt Gary might be helpful to Jim in understanding what might
be going on.

My real name is Tracy Farley, but I can be called anything, it does not
matter. Marylongstockings is simply an ATS name.

a reply to: Guest101

Hi guest 101,

I am indeed familiar with Dr Jacobs material , I had looked this over
several times to see were and how it all might fit.

John Burroughs interestingly also goes into his hypnosis and
seemed pretty weirded out over how he seemed to be a different
person. In other words channelling. I dislike that term but it
is the one we are most familiar with.

You are correct, Jim does say everything is by design
This also is something Jim believed re our connection with one
another also. All by design.
If we trace back, depending how far one wishes to go.
It does paint an unusual picture.
But yes. Everything is seemingly by design.
Why would this be and who did the designing??

I am not sure what to say re the errors
But I do have some thoughts on much of all of this.

a reply to: Tulpa

Spot on . Ready made.

Now the question is, by whom.

Hi 101,

I have pointed out consistently the areas which need looking into
over the last few years as I know things are not quite fitting with
the hopes others would look much much further .
However ,it also does not need me to point all of that out either
I can see very well that ATS members know their stuff.

Please do not think am trying to point fingers or suggest fraud,
In any response I might make. Though I understand
everyone has a right to question for or against.

I am much more interested in looking at all of this in much
finer detail to just point fingers and say Jim did it. It must
be remembered all of us to include Gary Osborn could be seen
to have been " in on it " if we really go this route and am sure
there will be others who have already thought this.

As I said earlier 101. I was close by to Jim during the above
interview and it was conducted at a period of time
were things were difficult at best. For fear of
the usual drama and to keep it not too personal,
with my own response. Lets just say the interview
was conducted at a time when Jim was having some
unusual things occur. What does this mean. It means
it does need looking into further.

Also in passing. I always knew the codes to consist of
13 pages. This is what Jim wrote and told me long back
before we were together. Later in time the formal web
site also contained 13 pages, I alerted Gary to this
as it was then said it was 16 pages, yet they wrote the
web site as 13. Those three last pages are the most telling
of all. The web page was very quickly corrected.

a reply to: mirageman

I will talk more re this one later.

Many things come to mind.

originally posted by: mirageman
Take Jim and his story out of it all and do you still have a case?

Yes but nowhere near as exciting as it sounds with a real craft, with strange markings and a binary code download.

Now take Larry's (now on thinner ice than perhaps it once was) story of a shape/colour shifting craft in peripheral vision and strange lifeforms out of the story too. What do we have left?

Same ...
But there is still a case.

In my searches on the web, I recently stumbled upon someone who has a gigantic online archive of UFO related documents.
It also contains old material on the Rendlesham case.

This file is particularly interesting,
It contains the story published in MUFON proceedings by Ray Boeche that was published before in this thread, with ‘airman A’, ‘airman B’, and ‘officer C’.
But on page 39 of the pdf, we find an article by Ray Boeche in which he tells the same story but reveals the identity of the airmen.
Airman A was Bustinza, Airman B was … Burroughs.
According to Boeche, Burroughs has corroborated the sequence of events outlined by Bustinza, as they unfolded on the third night:

- Strange lights were reported by the guard at East Gate [this was probably Battram]
- Bustinza went to the site with Englund and Ball to check it out
- They encounter a thing with a pulsating red light on top and several blue lights underneath
- They chase it through the forest but cannot catch up with it
- They contact Halt, who tells them to wait for his arrival
- Halt and Burroughs both arrive at the site
- Halt tells Bustinza to pick up some more light-alls
- Burroughs accompanies Bustinza and they go back to Bentwaters to get the light-alls [Halt goes into the forest]
- When they come back at the site, the light-alls are not functioning
- Burroughs and Bustinza join the others in the continuing search for the object [note that Burroughs was not on official duty]
- The animals on a nearby farm start to cause an uproar [can also be heard on Halt’s tape]
- Suddenly the object was there, dark-silver coloured with rainbow coloured light on it [in his latest interview Bustinza says it looked like a snowy TV screen]
- The men are ordered to form a perimeter around the object [is this the strange gap on Halt's tape after the see the strange object in the farmer's field?]
- The object disappears in a flash [after 'watching it for 30 minutes' - maybe an overestimation?]

No Larry and no binary, but still interesting …

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
Also in passing. I always knew the codes to consist of
13 pages. This is what Jim wrote and told me long back
before we were together. Later in time the formal web
site also contained 13 pages, I alerted Gary to this
as it was then said it was 16 pages, yet they wrote the
web site as 13. Those three last pages are the most telling
of all. The web page was very quickly corrected.

Jim says there are 14 pages of binary code during his interview with Angela Joiner (I posted the link to that again recently in this thread). He mentions 6 pages turned over for decoding, but he never mentions 13 or 16 pages.

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: mirageman

Hi, To be very clear re this element to others who ask. The book creation or pending book
is a direct result from Jims dreams of 23.5. One can go back into these posts
about all of that. It was because of the alleged dreaming that Jim claimed and told me about
which led to where we are today. I had known Gary many months before knowing
Jim and was familiar with his research. It was at my suggestion that Jim connected
with Gary as I felt Gary might be helpful to Jim in understanding what might
be going on.

My real name is Tracy Farley, but I can be called anything, it does not
matter. Marylongstockings is simply an ATS name.

Sounds like you are still trying to write yourself into this story and continue to exaggerate your role

a reply to: Guest101

If Larry did borrow Bustinza's story, we probably don't have to eliminate it, but just take out the crazier elements. I think Ray's interview tells us that the rainbow craft was part of the original event.

I was always curious how specific Larry was about the craft, and how he sometimes referenced the snowy appearance. Bustinza makes this reference twice - once when he was with Burroughs and Burroughs ran towards the craft will Bustinza fell (was pushed).

The second was the Larry Warren / Bustinza encounter. In both he also refers to strange shadows. I believe he's referring to volumetric shadows that can occur in misty or dusty air.

I feel like I might have enough hearsay to piece together a rough timeline of what really might happened with this addition.

One thing to add, in Randles / Butler / Streets there are several early clues and quotes from Halt that didn't use to make sense to me. Now they do, maybe.

- Halt tells the authors that one of the airmen tried to climb the craft. Warren is on video telling the same story. Bustinza tells us that on the third night as Burroughs ran into the light of the craft he disappeared and ended up at the other side of the field.

My theory now, is that Warren told the story slightly wrong, and Halt heard it. I'm now convinced John did run into the phenomena.

- There are also rumours of the Halt tape (before it was released). Penniston tells the authors that the tape has been edited to give 'a certain impression'. The rumours that authors get of the tape are as follows:

- Halt orders the airmen with him to draw their guns
- One of the airmen fires, perhaps with jitters.
- The phenomena makes some sort of aggressive move
- Halt gets a closer look at the craft and says 'My God its a Ma..."

The authors speculate that that the word is "Machine".

Of course, when the tape was released, it matched the lighthouse rotation and did not include the above.

> Speculation - Armed Airmen?

- The airmen were armed, this has been confirmed for at least one airmen by Burroughs in Phenomeon Radios's latest
broadcast with Gary Heseltine
- I've also heard Bustinza back up this story
- Larry heavily borrowed some parts of Bustinza's story

> Conclusion - Armed Airmen

Yes.

Speculation - Was a shot fired?

Why did the tape that was talked about in SkyCrash include these more aggressive elements? Why did the Halt one not?

> Conclusion

Can't be definite. A shot may have been fired on the third night.

> Speculation - The UNEDITED Halt Tape

The Skycrash Tape presents a much more threatening encounter, one that we never got to hear. Why? Halt's tape is edited. Who told Jenny and co, that Halt exclaims 'It's a Machine' . Why would someone add that?

> Conclusion - UNEDITED?

We know that the Halt tape is not a complete encounter. We can be near certain at least one airmen was armed. That means there was a chance that one of them fired at the phenomena.

I think we now have to consider the possibility that the true RFI is the story of Bustinza and Burroughs, with Halt and a few others playing lesser roles.

Why was Burroughs health impacted but not Bustinza? Burroughs ran into the light of the craft. Bustinza has categorically stated this. It makes sense, whatever you might think the phenomena is - UFO, plasma, ghost, military.

> Overall Conclusion.

That it is possible that a weapon was fired and if so, that the Halt Tape probably contains the information given to the sky crash authors. It was a machine. It appeared hostile or at least belligerent to the airmen when they attempted to interfere.

Burroughs was injured by running into the light. Bustinza wasn't. That's because the radiation fell off rapidly.

a reply to: ctj83

"machine" - not "craft".

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

A few months ago, I looked at John's injuries and did some research. I came to the conclusion that if there was nuclear power involved (and I'm not sure) - it was a of a type being developed to fit into aircraft.

How odd that I should come to this conclusion, when Ray in the file Guest linked, got a much clearer answer from Dr Bond (HOTOL) as to what his research into the RFI suggested. In SkyCrash we are told it was a downed satellite whose orbit was interfered with.

APEN said it was a downed Soviet Satellite - a 'brown bear'

I've always dismissed these. However Ray gives far more details about what Bond said that Randles did. It was a space based nuclear reactor.

As much as I don't like this theory, doesn't this bear a resemblance to the third night craft?



Look at those tripod legs...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I only know it as 13 pages, in writing to me

Otherwise the formal web site stated 13 pages.

There has been confusion re this aspect as there
has never been anything truly clear.

I do have a copy of the formal web site and Gary was told
re this, it was changed to 16 as it had been announced it was 16 pages.

The Joiner show is quite another matter however.

a reply to: Sedonabird

I cant write myself into something which occurred.

It is exactly as stated, how Jim got involved with Gary

The control element this time round wont work

I have nothing to say other than some things.

Nothing more.

a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman, if I am not mistaken there is going to be a radio
show were some things are going to be brought up.

It seems there is some "interesting" findings. I have no idea
what those findings are, just noted the pending radio show
of John Bs about this . Or course I hear all you are saying
in this.

a reply to: ctj83

That looks like a craft, not a machine.

I'm interested in the word "machine".

That word says something very interesting.

(if indeed that was the word).

Now nuclear planes and satellites are no big secret.

For example all NASA probes to the deep solar systems have to include nuclear material---not enough solar radiation for solar cells.

As for those tripod feet...those would have made very deep impressions, not "rabbit scratches".

I don't think that theory is a good one.

Besides...that sort of nuclear craft would have emitted hard (ionizing) radiation...and likely a full body dose at that....

Which doesn't fit the "Kit Green evidence".

Kev

a reply to: Guest101

If one just ignores anything said by Jim, or about Jim, or about "binary codes" then its possible to discuss the incident semi-coherently.

But what really itches my britches is how Casual Halt was about the whole affair.

Casual, unusual incident and "nuclear ordinance" are words that don't fit well in the same sentence.

RFI has become one big, messy melodrama and at this point in time determining what happened at the core of it, other than deception, seems quite the Herculean task.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

It's an odd choice of word isn't it? It doesn't feel like a an attempt to "give a certain impression" as Penniston says in Skycrash.

Whoever it was who told the authors, was an airman and knew of the Halt tape in detail. Yet, if they felt it would leak, why say about the weapons, attack and machine if it wasn't true?

If they were making it up what not says its aliens, little green men or a flying saucer. That's why, regardless of if the statement Halt made is correct, I believe that early whistleblower might be right.

Which means those comments were edited out.

originally posted by: Guest101



..........
In my searches on the web, I recently stumbled upon someone who has a gigantic online archive of UFO related documents.
It also contains old material on the Rendlesham case.

This file is particularly interesting,
It contains the story published in MUFON proceedings by Ray Boeche that was published before in this thread, with ‘airman A’, ‘airman B’, and ‘officer C’.
But on page 39 of the pdf, we find an article by Ray Boeche in which he tells the same story but reveals the identity of the airmen.
Airman A was Bustinza, Airman B was … Burroughs.
According to Boeche, Burroughs has corroborated the sequence of events outlined by Bustinza, as they unfolded on the third night:.............

Thanks for that.

There is also an interview with Ray Boeche (which is posted earlier as well)



The interviewer is one John Burroughs.

originally posted by: Marylongstockings

...Lets just say the interview was conducted at a time when Jim was having some
unusual things occur. What does this mean. It means it does need looking into further...

Hi, Mary. When you say "unusual,"---in what way? I'm just wondering if there's any reference in that to high strangeness or human interference, or if that was your casual way to say y'all were having relationship issues at the time? Thanks.

Hi The Gut,

No, nothing to do with relationship problems .

As much as I would like to say more, I already see there
is a control element around so its best I limit
my response.


I did contact someone to see if there was anyone who
could assist with the situation at the time.

I presented that info to Jim to see if he would consider
making contact with that person, as things were
escalating activity wise. He said he would consider
this but nothing was done.

I am sure the person who I made the enquiry to
would confirm that I had asked for assistance.