The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:14 pm

As many of you know, Rendlescam (that’s not a typo) is one of the cases that is alleged to have involved “UFOs and Nukes” and as such, Robert Hastings is currently making much ado about (then) Col. Halt’s “new and improved” affidavit in this recent posting on Frank Warren's “UFO Chronicles”…

UFO-Spin in the UK
Hastings’ Response to Clarke—Part I

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/08 ... se-to.html

According to noted UK sceptic (that’s not a typo) Ian Ridpath, it contains clear contradictions with the facts as recorded in his original memo and on the audio tape recorded at the time as outlined in his response here…

Col Halt's affidavit
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

Retrospective falsification at it’s finest! This is not the first time Halt and other Rendlescam “witnesses” have changed their story, for example…

Read the accounts of the eyewitness on the first night
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.htm

Also, some other new information about this case from Ian is detailed in an article in Tim Printy’s most recent issue of SUNlite here…

New witness confirms the Rendlesham forest incident was triggered by a fireball
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_5.pdf (p.22)

What do you think?

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby longhaircowboy » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:40 pm

I noticed that in Hastings response to Clarke he said Halt mentioned a disc shaped object yet his quote of Halt doesn't mention it. Just beams of light. And from what I remember of Halts original statements he didn't mention a disc. Again Hastings isn't doing his credibility any good.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

Memory...is an internal rumor.
George Santayana
User avatar
longhaircowboy
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:05 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby DrDil » Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:23 pm

It seems that due to Hastings’ latching onto only the aspects that validate his pet theories he’s been hoisted by his own petard as Dave Clarke has just released a statement from Halts superior which contradicts and directly refute the claims of Halt as they relate to the UFO projecting beams of light onto the missile area, claims which Clarke was apparently unaware of until Hastings touted it as proof.

Here's an excerpt from Colonel Ted Conrad’s 2010 statement (just released today):


“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground. This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December 1980].

Source: http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html



Cheers.
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby DrDil » Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:45 pm

Access Denied wrote:As many of you know, Rendlescam (that’s not a typo) is one of the cases that is alleged to have involved “UFOs and Nukes” and as such, Robert Hastings is currently making much ado about (then) Col. Halt’s “new and improved” affidavit in this recent posting on Frank Warren's “UFO Chronicles”…


<snip>

Read the accounts of the eyewitness on the first night
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.htm

<snip>

What do you think?

Tom

Hi AD,

Relying again on Ian Ridpath (and from the link I just noticed you posted above) here’s the first five (of ten) questions that cast serious doubt on the credibility of more recent statements.

I believe they're worth repeating here in full:

One of the statements is by the officer in charge at Central Security Control (CSC) on the night in question, Lt Fred ‘Skip’ Buran, who helped gather the statements from the others. It is sometimes said that the statements were deliberately toned down or sanitized, but Buran told me by email on 2007 December 30: “I did not ask anyone to edit their statements in any way. Had anything occurred other than what appeared in the statements, those facts should have been included.”

These statements should be read in conjunction with the report of the local Suffolk police who were called to the scene of the incident on the first night and again the following morning.

A number of points are worth making:

1. The statements give the correct date for the sighting (December 26). This makes it even more surprising that Col Halt got the date wrong in his memo. Penniston’s statement is the exception, as it is undated (but see Point 5 below).

2. The only witness to claim he saw a mechanical object was Penniston. The others have only ever described seeing lights. During the incident, Penniston estimated that he got no closer than about 50 metres to the object and that every time he tried to approach it, it moved ahead of him. This was relayed at the time by radio to his supervisor, Master Sergeant Chandler, who confirms it in his own statement. There was no mention at the time of the much closer and extended encounter that Penniston has since claimed (see Point 5).

3. Col Ted Conrad, Halt’s superior officer, debriefed Penniston in the days after the event. Conrad told researcher David Clarke in 2010 June that Penniston confirmed that he did not get close enough to the object for a detailed look, as in his written witness statement. According to Conrad, Penniston said he followed the light through the trees to an open field whereupon it disappeared beyond a small rise in the direction of a farm house. That is consistent with the witness statements of Burroughs and Cabansag, although the detail about the farmhouse is not mentioned in Penniston’s own typewritten statement.

4. Burroughs and Cabansag confirm that they chased this unidentified light for about two miles before realizing what it was. Evidently they were not as familiar with the lighthouse as proponents of this case like to claim – see also Point 9 below. In an interview on The Paracast in 2009 Burroughs stated he had never been out in the woods before that night. Penniston and Cabansag were newly arrived on base and were no more familiar with the woods than he was (scroll to 08:40, 25:35 and 33:15 in the Paracast interview).

5. In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes (see picture below). However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.” So what are we to make of Penniston’s claims?


Source: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.htm

If you follow the above link then all of the documents referenced are linked to in Ridpaths thorough investigation of the event/s (as well as obviously the remainder of the demanding questions).


Cheers.
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:18 pm

A good bookend to Ridpath's webpage has been added:

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html

Dr. Clarke's summary of his research demonstrates that Ridpath is essentially correct and the present stories told by the principal witnesses seems to have evolved over the years.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby DrDil » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:08 pm

astrophotographer wrote:A good bookend to Ridpath's webpage has been added:

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html

Dr. Clarke's summary of his research demonstrates that Ridpath is essentially correct and the present stories told by the principal witnesses seems to have evolved over the years.


Hi Tim,

I agree and the post (Clarke) you linked to was actually the same one I linked to and quoted in my first comment (above).


Cheers. :)


P.S. Nice job with the latest issue of SUNlite.
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:26 am

DrDil wrote:Hi Tim,

I agree and the post (Clarke) you linked to was actually the same one I linked to and quoted in my first comment (above).


Sorry, I missed your post.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby Gary » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:48 pm

AD, any idea if the highly redacted USAF file on an investigation of an unexplained phenomenon-related incident in Europe by an American nuclear authority was related to this case? Unfortunately I cannot find the original letter but recall it was among the 89,000 original STAR GATE files release by CIA.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby FireMoon » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:30 am

Ridpath carefully avoids ever mentioning the testimony of Gerry Harris who was an independent civilian witness to what happened on the night of the Halt episode. Harris has appeared on a couple of documentary's but hasn't joined the circus when he could well have done. He confirms lights above the forest and rake load of activity as he watched it unfold for some considerable time. Then the other civilian, Arthur Smekle, who was driving through the forest on their way home that night who also reported a series of strange lights. Why would Ridpath ignore Harris's evidence? Could it be because , if true, it blows a huge hole in his nice little industry he has going?

There are two sides to leaving out information and the skeptics are just as guilty at, coming to conclusions and only seeing the evidence that suits them as the believers are.
FireMoon
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:57 pm

FireMoon wrote:Ridpath carefully avoids ever mentioning the testimony of Gerry Harris who was an independent civilian witness to what happened on the night of the Halt episode. Harris has appeared on a couple of documentary's but hasn't joined the circus when he could well have done. He confirms lights above the forest and rake load of activity as he watched it unfold for some considerable time. Then the other civilian, Arthur Smekle, who was driving through the forest on their way home that night who also reported a series of strange lights. Why would Ridpath ignore Harris's evidence? Could it be because , if true, it blows a huge hole in his nice little industry he has going?

There are two sides to leaving out information and the skeptics are just as guilty at, coming to conclusions and only seeing the evidence that suits them as the believers are.


In the book, The UFOs that never were, Jenny Randles (an original investigator to the case), concluded that Ridpath was correct. These stories did not surface until many years later. One can not even be certain they even saw their UFOs the same night as all the others.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:23 am

From the SUNlite thread…

astrophotographer wrote:Aliens supposedly downloaded Binary code to Penniston’s brain and he is compared to Moses, St. Paul, Joan of arc, Abraham, etc.??? Are we supposed to really believe that St. Penniston of the Rendlesham forest is the next “chosen one”?????? Forgive my skepticism.

If ever there was ever any doubt that this case was much ado about some folks who weren’t able to recognize what they were looking at (like say a lighthouse they never saw before) and having a “ghost hunters moment” (OMG what the hell was that?! Did you hear it??? Wait, listen!! [insert loud noise here] <everybody jumps and screams>) which has since been blown up beyond all recognition and proportion, there shouldn’t be now. Clearly the “experience” has gone to these people’s heads and they’ve become addicted to the “fame” and “fortune” it brings them… sad.

It also never ceases to me amaze to see how people suffering from cognitive dissonance will rationalize any new addition to a story no matter how ridiculous in order hold on to their belief system. Just like the addition of bodies to the Roswell Myth even though nobody ever said anything about it until after people bought into the “cover up of a crashed UFO” revision 30 years later…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:57 pm

The instant Linda Moulton Howe gets involved, you know the credibility of the event begins to drop. She should have a big VG (Very Gullible) stamped on her forehead. For that matter, those that are willing to accept the latest story being told might want to recheck their BS detectors.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:21 am

Ian Ridpath points out some serious discrepencies associated with the recent Penniston and Burroughs revelations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhdUbcAwdcM

Penniston describes writing down the "code' on the 27th. How can he get the code right over 24 hours after the download? If he can write down 12-14 pages (I thought it was described as 6) of binary without error 24 hours later, he should be able to do the same today. The memory should still be there.

Anyway, Burroughs then made some comments that are obvious lies. According to him, the incorrect date in the "magic notebook" was because it was the date the codes were written. However, this is incorrect as in the sci-fi channel show with the incorrect time and date of the event is shown. In it, there are notes about a potential aircraft crash and notes about the encounter. I see a couple of gentlemen who are desperate for attention and are going to lie to make it happen. It is beginning to rival Roswell in the way witnesses are going to change their story the instant people note there are problems with the previous one. BTW, Ian also says that Penniston is now changing the landing site for his encounter a second (or is it third) time!!!!
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:08 am

astrophotographer wrote:Anyway, Burroughs then made some comments that are obvious lies. According to him, the incorrect date in the "magic notebook" was because it was the date the codes were written. However, this is incorrect as in the sci-fi channel show with the incorrect time and date of the event is shown. In it, there are notes about a potential aircraft crash and notes about the encounter.

As Ian points out, he has a screen capture of the first page of his notebook and a copy of that Sci-Fi video on his website where he flips through it that was taken before this latest claim and didn't include the binary stuff…

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.htm
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Pennistonnotebook.mov

The first page, shown above, is headed with the date “27 Dec 80”. Below is written “12:20. Response notes. A/C [i.e. aircraft] crash”. The rest is hidden behind his hand. Although the time may at first look like 12:50, inspection of the TV footage shows it is 12:20. At the bottom of the next page is another time; this looks to be either 12.31 or 12.51. These times should should really be expressed as “0020” etc. The 24-hour clock is standard in military, aviation and emergency services usage, and at the time of the Rendlesham incident Penniston came under all three headings, so why he used the civilian 12-hour clock is a puzzle.

Penniston claims to have made these notes and sketches at the time of the incident. When I asked him in 2010 April, via the Rendlesham Forest Incident online forum, to explain the inconsistency in date and time with the known date and time of the incident (i.e. 3 a.m. on December 26), he replied that the figures in his notebook “are the actual time and date of the event”. Unfortunately, we have independent evidence that they are not. This basic error in date and time is enough to raise serious doubts about whether the notes were made during the encounter as Penniston claims.

Busted again... this guy has told so many lies now he can't keep them straight.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: The Rendlesham Forest UFO case

Postby nablator » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:00 pm

Some new articles about the Rendlesham hoax.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... issed.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... k-UFO.html

"Col Conrad has always remained silent about the incident, until now."

Have they missed his statement in 2010 quoted by A.D. above? Nothing new.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron