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

Not much more to say until after the ebook, although as you noted, I redacted some things as the time isn't right.

a reply to: ctj83

I missed that bit am afraid.

originally posted by: Shaqmeister
BTW, I'm not hearing all of the things you do in your transcribing of Halt. Do you maybe have a cleaned up version?

This one, plus a proper set of headphones. It is de-noised, but not too much.
One correction: Halt says: “ comin’ “, not “coming in”. That was an error in the transcription I had on file. The rest can be heard if you listen carefully with a good set of headphones at a proper volume level.

I redacted some things as the time isn't right.

a reply to: ctj83

Correction to my last post to you. You are referring to the post a few days
ago? Yes, I made note.

If you mean yesterdays post, I only saw a couple of lines had been corrected or removed
I did not actually see what had been posted.

Otherwise, you mention the time is not right.

But it shall be at some point .

a reply to: Guest101

Thanks for that link to the 'de-noised' Halt Tape. I'll give it a listen.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I'm referring to the one you saw, not my last one.

I'll leave one more thought:

Are their commonalities between Burroughs' hypnosis and Pennistons? If so, is there a common source?

Are their commonalities between Burroughs' hypnosis and Pennistons? If so, is there a common source?

a reply to: ctj83

And who could the common source be should this be correct, I shall leave it at that

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Baablacksheep

The fact the codes are of human origin from a specific map-set in 2000s is irrefutable.

Until that question is directly addressed, how can anything else be considered?

The presence, here, of those that could answer but choose not to is disappointing.
I predict that we will never see this central question addressed as there is no answer that will allow this to continue.

Steveywonders have people seen the civil defense sign and red it on wiki? Circle and triangle protective sign like synbols ?

originally posted by: mirageman

As he says.... the cat got out the bag and he couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I think he's talking about more than just having egg on his face.

I don’t put much stock in this, however here it is:

In a public facebook posting by John Burroughs entitled, "Considerations, Note 6: The Deception of Appearance," the following discussion took place (on 6 April 2014) between he and Tracy Farley:

John F Burroughs: Does not matter Tracy all that matters is what happens next with you.

John F Burroughs: Time will tell after all you told Jim you had some kind of mission so time will tell

Tracy Farley: Jim said he had a mission,you both where on one and would follow all instructions.

John F Burroughs: Enough said on that I welcome your comets on the above post you seem to understand it.

Tracy Farley Are you talking to Diane now.

John F Burroughs: That's interesting Tracy that he said that to you.

Tracy Farley: Well can do nothing about it John,thats what he said,heck why would I make it up,he wrote and said it. Gosh all you have to do is ask stuff in

John F Burroughs: No I'm just putting humpty dumpty back together again.

Source:
www.facebook.com...

Was John's mission—perhaps together with Penniston—to put "humpty dumpty back together again" as inferred by Williams in reference to getting the cat back in the bag (be quite a spectacle, perhaps hence the binary code).

In another posting by John (Note 8, comments 22 April 2014) we have this
www.facebook.com...

Tracy Farley: What is the importance of Eyes of your eyes John,if I might ask. I see this here on your page the other day and I see in the binary above as well as the book. As you know I find that element interesting.

John F Burroughs: Tracy have Gary take a close look at Illinois to see how this all might connect.

Tracy Farley: @ Burroughs. you have got some info which might assist in that area.

John F Burroughs: Just look at Illinois if possible that's all I'm asking.

John F Burroughs: It looks like a eye winking at you.. Mary had a little lamb....

Do I now see we have a user Baablacksheep posting ... ? (j/k mate). Is Gary Osborn catching all these curious coincidences?

originally posted by: Defragmentor

originally posted by: mirageman

As he says.... the cat got out the bag and he couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I think he's talking about more than just having egg on his face.

I don’t put much stock in this, however here it is:

In a public facebook posting by John Burroughs entitled, "Considerations, Note 6: The Deception of Appearance," the following discussion took place (on 6 April 2014) between he and Tracy Farley:

John F Burroughs: Does not matter Tracy all that matters is what happens next with you.

John F Burroughs: Time will tell after all you told Jim you had some kind of mission so time will tell

Tracy Farley: Jim said he had a mission,you both where on one and would follow all instructions.

John F Burroughs: Enough said on that I welcome your comets on the above post you seem to understand it.

Tracy Farley Are you talking to Diane now.

John F Burroughs: That's interesting Tracy that he said that to you.

Tracy Farley: Well can do nothing about it John,thats what he said,heck why would I make it up,he wrote and said it. Gosh all you have to do is ask stuff in

John F Burroughs: No I'm just putting humpty dumpty back together again.

Source:
www.facebook.com...

Was John's mission—perhaps together with Penniston—to put "humpty dumpty back together again" as inferred by Williams in reference to getting the cat back in the bag (be quite a spectacle, perhaps hence the binary code).

In another posting by John (Note 8, comments 22 April 2014) we have this
www.facebook.com...

Tracy Farley: What is the importance of Eyes of your eyes John,if I might ask. I see this here on your page the other day and I see in the binary above as well as the book. As you know I find that element interesting.

John F Burroughs: Tracy have Gary take a close look at Illinois to see how this all might connect.

Tracy Farley: @ Burroughs. you have got some info which might assist in that area.

John F Burroughs: Just look at Illinois if possible that's all I'm asking.

John F Burroughs: It looks like a eye winking at you.. Mary had a little lamb....

Do I now see we have a user Baablacksheep posting ... ? (j/k mate). Is Gary Osborn catching all these curious coincidences?

Looks to me that Farley found her way back on with another name, or she has a cohort !
Also, John Burroughs... who wrote your considerations? I know by looking at your posts , that you sure didn't . Let's give credit to those who write for you ...
And.. to set the record straight
I'm not Penniston's or anyone else's voice..
just expressing my own thoughts based on answers that were received from my questions... conferences I've attended and conversations with others ... several of them who were involved in RFI or who have done extensive research

Info to share regarding Tracy Farley ....While you were busy judging others..
You left your closet door open and a lot of skeletons fell out ....
Let's first start with your blog
tracyfarley-time.blogspot.com...
/ you stated that you were a certified hypno therapist through IAH/ IAPH. Rather interesting that when contacted , IAH/IAPH looked back through 20 years of records and there aren't any documents/ records with your name.. They stated certification was a 3 step process and that certification renewal required continuing ed hours yearly.. no records of any of that ....
so to those on this site.. how can you trust anything from TF, when what she has stated has been discredited?
So think to yourself... what is her agenda ?
Why is she trying to discredit and disinform? And... why are others so quick to jump on her band wagon ?? What are they scared of???

Always "chasing after and fighting with windmills" (as Dr. Eric Walker once said) ... Tracy is, as with Guest101, MM and many others here, asking some pertinent questions.

But we're not getting answers are we?

That's how this whole thing seems to be going down. Keep it warm at the fire. And in process maintain a level of obfuscation to detract from the original Halt memo and probably whatever really occurred (likely with the weapons, at least if other UFO at AFB cases are anything to go by).

Something to look at while waiting for Miragemans ebook

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Baablacksheep

A video about binary codes. Sigh.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur
John Burroughs is now co-host of a radio show with Linda Moulton Howe. He and Jim Penniston seemed to have not seen eye to eye since working on their book with Nick Pope.

I would have wished for Burroughs to have pulled out of Penniston's slip stream a long time ago. Burroughs has always seemed happy to be honest and just say that, at some point or other, "this is where our stories differ." But what I haven't seen him ever do is just come out and say "Hold on, Jim. That's just not what happened." I remember listening to an interview of both Penniston and Burroughs together, on separate phone lines, and Penniston (nervously, in my view, and after a pause) gave the start of the timeline on the first night as around midnight (which he needs it to be), not 03:00 hrs (which it was). And I waited, thinking 'come on, John. Time to speak up'. Only, Burroughs just let it sit, just as he's always let this kind of nonsensical and cynical rewriting of the facts sit.

Burroughs has always, in my view, tended towards a puppy-like subservience to Penniston. When Penniston keeps rehashing his story of having walked around a craft for 45 minutes taking notes in his notebook, and Burroughs has no recollection of this happening, he assumes something like "I must have a block in my memory," when he should just say "No, you didn't!"

Under any normal circumstances, if someone is heading off into fantasy about something that is demonstrably untrue (like Penniston has since forever), it would be helpful if someone else who was present would be the one to stand up and rein him back. But Burroughs, to my knowledge, has never done that, and I wonder if it's because Burroughs' own reconstruction of events is so tied in with his past acceptance of everything that Penniston has ever said that he just has no way out now.

Still, without Burroughs' 'agreement through silence', my hope would be that Penniston would ultimately find it harder to add more fantasy to the already fantastic.

MM, can you point out to me where you're seeing this 'no longer seeing eye-to-eye'?

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Baablacksheep

A video about binary codes. Sigh.

It was an attempt in a little humour.

How about, " A code within a code". John Burroughs words .

a reply to: Shaqmeister
"Although it has not been challenged before, I believe there is also an error in the memorandum regarding the time of the first incident. It states that the patrolmen saw the unusual lights at approximately 03.00, but according to Timothy Egercic's testimony, his patrol received the first call during shift change, which occurred between 23.00 and midnight. This is more than three hours' time difference. Egercic's testimony, along with other witnesses, is also in accordance with the time recorded by Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston, who claims he was contacted at precisely two minutes past midnight. By the time the airmen at RAF Woodbridge had checked out the sighting, reported it to the Law Enforcement desk, which in turn was reported to Central Security Control and Egercic's patrol, it would certainly have been around midnight when SSgt. Penniston was alerted. What is more, the events of the first night appear to have been terminated before the local police arrived, becuase PC Dave King, having turned up at approximately 04.30, reported that there were no military men in the forest.

At a Quest UFO conference in 1994 Colonel Halt told the audience that Penniston's patrol walked towards the coast for one or two miles and were not contactable for around one and half hours. He also stated that the desk sergeant, Crash McCabe, referred to the time of the incident as being 'sometime around midnight'. In view of the aforementioned I conclude that the time of 03.00 hrs for the initial sighting is incorrect."


"Working with recent information, I have managed to piece together a more detailed account of what John Burroughs experienced during Christmas week 1980. Although his witness statement shows the time around 03.00, he has since claimed the first incident occured after midnight, but does not offer a specific time."

"It is my opinion that Jim Penniston is a most reliable witness. During my conversations with him, he never changed his story always answered my questions intelligently. He is willing to be challenged by the sceptics who have publically claimed that his experience cannot be genuine because he did not dicuss it in the early years. Yet not one sceptic has gone to the trouble to locate and interview him. If they had done so they would realize that Penniston did try to talk discreetly to researchers as early as 1983 but was unable to go public because until 1993 he was still serving in the USAF.
Over the years he has searched for a meaning as to what happened in Rendlesham Forest that Christmas in 1980, but has never come to any conclusion. He does not expect the US Government to admit it was extraterrestrial for even he does not know what it was. However, he would like some answers and, rather than the denials, he would be satisfied if the government would admit that it was 'a craft of unknown origin' and they are unable to explain it. Jim Penniston sums it up when he says 'the incident was of biblical proportion'."

Georgina Bruni, 'You Can't Tell the People.' 2002.

a reply to: Sedonabird

Hi Sedonabird

Does Bruni also give an explanation as to how she came to weight Egercic's long-after-the-fact (1998) testimony, Burroughs' post-hypnotic 'now I'm not sure' reassessment and Penniston's (~1997?) 'I need some extra time in this timeline' demand more highly, as evidence, against the primary, contemporary (to the event) and mutually consistent (as to time) written testimonies of Burroughs, Cabansag, Buran, Chandler, and Halt?

“Jeff. Come on. What are we doing? I’m calling bulls¶¡t on this whole thing. What is this?” — Jeremy Vaeni: Paratopia (117).

a reply to: Shaqmeister

You must like the binary your 117 goes directly to the Angelina Joiner video?

originally posted by: Sedonabird
....
"It is my opinion that Jim Penniston is a most reliable witness. During my conversations with him, he never changed his story always answered my questions intelligently"
....
Georgina Bruni, 'You Can't Tell the People.' 2002.

Guess why Georgina Bruni could not check any of Penniston’s story with Burroughs?

"According to Penniston, he [John Burroughs] disappeared from his home in Arizona without a trace. Penniston thinks Burroughs got scared and packed up. All attempts to find him have been fruitless."

Georgina Bruni, You can’t tell the people, p 171

And guess why she could not check Penniston’s story with Cabansag, either:

"He [Jim Penniston] instructed Cabansag to stay back at the vehicle to act as communications relay."

Georgina Bruni, You can’t tell the people, p 173

However:

"Cabansag does not recall separating from the patrol."

Georgina Bruni, You can’t tell the people, p 190

And Burroughs was not too scared to give his opinion on the old RFI forum:

“Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated.”

“As far as him [Jim Penniston] touching something he was the closest but I did not see him touch anything.”

“Sorry I never said it was an object. Just bright lights. In my statement I tried to show what the lights looked like. Penniston was the one who said it was solid and warm to the touch.”

John Burroughs, old RFI forum

originally posted by: Guest101
And Burroughs was not too scared to give his opinion on the old RFI forum:

“Cabansag was with us when we first came upon the lights and it only lasted a couple of min not over 45 like Penniston has stated.”

“As far as him [Jim Penniston] touching something he was the closest but I did not see him touch anything.”

“Sorry I never said it was an object. Just bright lights. In my statement I tried to show what the lights looked like. Penniston was the one who said it was solid and warm to the touch.”

John Burroughs, old RFI forum

And it's nice to have Burroughs here not trying to debunk his own original witness statement which, of course, itself alludes to where Cabansag was at the crucial moment:

... the woods lit up & you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises & there was a lot of movement in the woods. all three of us hit the ground & whatever it was started moving back towards the open field ... [Emphasis added.]