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

a reply to: wobbs62

I've never noticed the sound of police sirens myself. Back then the sirens would have sounded like they had done since the 1960s (and before).



You may or may not know that there is a lot of controversy surrounding Larry Warren's claims and other activities.

I'd suggest you download and listen to the tape yourself. A good copy of which is available from Ian Ridpath's website here : Link. If your audio skills are a little more sophisticated you could also try filtering it with audacity (free software).

a reply to: mirageman

For those still in doubt, I bought this his book (The Rendlesham File: Britain's Roswell ? by Andrew Pike) and so far it's been an eye opening and interesting read (not only on Rendlesham, but a good overview in general, white vs black science, etc). Easy to read and written in a down to earth style, though I'm still early in the first chapters.

Question though, had the author's got his facts straight? He is making assumptions on some things, but he's open about those parts so ...

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

It just came out in November. I just got it yesterday.

I am only at 8%, but I can say it's quite a book.

I think that he's going to miss the Little Red Wagon..
but then, most everyone does.

Will have to wait and see.. maybe I'll be pleasantly
surprised.

It should make for some lively discussion.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

For those still in doubt, I bought this his book (The Rendlesham File: Britain's Roswell ? by Andrew Pike) and so far it's been an eye opening and interesting read .....

Question though, had the author's got his facts straight? He is making assumptions on some things, but he's open about those parts so ...

The main chunk of the book was written before the big binary reveal and not longer after Penniston had upgraded his story with his 45 minute reconnaissance of a triangle UFO sitting on the forest floor. From what I've read he seems to take this story at face value. But there are updated chapters at the end of the book. So we may get a different view after reading through it.

What is interesting to me is the mention of the mysterious APEN group. They seemed to be a political group posing as a UFO group and trying to disrupt British ufologists. But the full story has never come out as to who was really behind it all.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm loving the book.

But the author is passing along UFO mythology in his own way.. in the
guise of science.. of course (I must admit) that people like Jacques Vallee
and I are doing the same thing.. any fantastic claims/theories that are
unproven, no matter how carefully considered.. talk to the mythological
core within all of us. The people who don't understand all the ins and outs
of the theory tend to mangle it, and someday, even, you might have
a religion pop out of it. It's disgusting.. but that's how this sort of thing
works.

In the end, I don't think I'll be able to verify hardly any of his claims...
and I think despite his healthy distrust of BS & I.C, he's still relatively
a babe in the woods.. able to be deceived pretty easily.. like most
of us.

But for a UFO book it's high quality, and he does reveal some of what he
was working on.. so I won't be in the dark any longer..

I remember when I first met MM, he mentioned AP to me.. and before he
could say a word, I said, "I bet he was working on plasma".. and of course
he was... in my max plasma stage, I'd always say, "Show me a "UFO" and
I'll show you plasma somewhere near.." and I still stand by that.. but my
view is a bit more nuanced these days.

I believe that JV wrote some things on APEN.. if I come across the material
I'll pass it along.

Finishing the book is a high priority for me right now.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

So, if Andrew is a "Babe in the woods" and easily deceived as you suggest Kev.

Then why do you feel it is a priority for you to finish the book? You are only 8 % through the material.

Just wondering.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

There aren't a lot of plasma researchers who are respectable ufologists.

Without researching plasmas and information theory and a few other
fields, there is no hope to getting to the bottom of "UFOs".

I'll take what I can get.

a reply to: mirageman

I know that I'm usually going on about plasma/Phenomenon and now "Boltzmann Brains"
a lot.. but just to mix it up.. if there WAS a more mundane answer to BTUFO like
"may" have been seen at RFI and surrounding areas (well Andrew Pike believes it),
then here would be my estimate of what it would be:

References

en.wikipedia.org...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

spacenews.com...

Eric W. Davis would be the man who would know.. (look at his resume)

www.linkedin.com...

The way it would probably work, would be that there is a small network of
low earth orbit satellites, which use solar energy or (possibly) nuclear
batteries or both, and then beams microwave/Terahertz energy beams
to semi-rigid lighter than air, air frame drones, which happen to look
like "BTUFO" and the energy beamed to them also happens to screw
with people's minds.. as we know that it can.

Now, how I came by this "theory" would get me carted off by people
in black suits, bent noses, and a weird olive complexion and you'd
never see me again. So I won't tell you how I came by this theory.

But worth discussing.

I think that if you researched it, you'd find that there are countries
that have never seen a "BTUFO" and the reason would not be
cultural.. but would be due to LEO satellite flight paths.

It would have to be LEO, to reduce attenuation and the "BTUFO"
would have to fly at a specific altitude most of the time.. tho
would have stored reserves to swoop lower for brief periods
of time.

All this beamed energy would cause secondary plasma effects
(of course). It would also (perhaps) answer a riddle about
UFO's being linked to certain local sidereal times:

www.jacquesvallee.net...

And would explain why NATO allies (I think) see far more
"BTUFO" than anyone else (the satellites might path over
them too.. with their permission).

Now.. I'm a complete idiot on satellite pathing.. my mind
can't wrap around it very well.. so someone with some
intelligence on the subject might speak up..

Of course ground-based transmission towers might be
in play as well.. which would also require allies to give
permission.

A careful data analysis of possible satellite pathing,
correlating with possible or known large transmission
towers and correlate with known BTUFO sightings
or lack of sightings.. could potentially prove or
disprove this "theory".

All well beyond me.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman yes, i know about the controversy surrounding Larry as I have been following this case since buying the news of the world in October 83, all involved have some kind of controversy surrounding them and now there is a possible fourth night to contend with, buy the way Mr ridpath is the biggest debunker of the case and a complete tool IMO.

a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman, regarding the tape, the copy that Georgia bruni had, which I have heard bits of, is crystal clear.
It was a first generation copy that she had enhanced.

a reply to: wobbs62

I have to try to tread the fine line between not being patronising and being clear about the information that has been floated. And yes, I can't say any of the main players (and even some of the minor ones) in this case aren't at best economic with the truth and at worst distorting it. Perhaps they are all part of a USAF plot to keep whatever really happened a secret by continually shifting loyalties and spreading bovine waste. Who knows?

Ian Ridpath is the no.1 debunker of the case for sure. But that doesn't mean you should discount everything he says. His site is an excellent resource of information whether you agree with his views or not. Ian has even dropped by in the thread on a few occasions and remained cordial with everyone.

He did doubt the authenticity of John Burroughs’s injuries during the RFI and requested to see the documentation. Which is impossible because medical files in the US are exempt from FOIA. Not only that John's records remain classified from even his doctors in relation to this case. Things Ian did not seem too keen to believe.

The statement from John’s lawyer and a letter to President Obama was presented to him. It was also pointed out that Burroughs injuries are very real and were either sustained at Rendlesham during his visit off base in December 1980 or they weren't. If they were then we have a genuine mystery which his lighthouse theory does not fit with. If they weren't - then the US VA, Kit Green, John Burroughs and others involved in the case are all complicit in covering something else up. Something obviously more important to keep secret than a UFO story.

Since then Ian Ridpath has not chosen to comment in this thread.

I will leave you to retain or change your opinion of him as you see fit.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Thanks for your thought Kev. I haven't had a chance to explore this.

Just one question. Does this technology fit into a timeline for 1980?

a reply to: mirageman

Tesla did similar things with beamed power way back.... and he died
in 1943!

Bell labs put solar cells in space in 1953.

Nuclear batteries were first built in 1913.

High powered "radars" (what we are basically talking about) the end of
WWII.

Lighter than air craft ... the 1800's.

Most of the basic technologies are pretty old.

Now the drive motor.. not sure how that would work..
but I suspect that it could have been done well before
the 80's as well.

This is also a thought experiment.. but all the pieces
seem feasible.. and it's a lot more down to earth than most of
my thought experiments.

"spy drones" that never have to land.. ever... as they are powered
from orbit.. seems a very desirable thing.. and you'd get better
camera resolution than you could from orbit itself.

Drones would be much harder to shoot down, compared to satellites..
and would be in an erratic path in a different layers of the upper
atmosphere. If shot down, would be much cheaper to replace..
much easier to get "up there' without needing a rocket launch.

If they were shot down or "crashed" a lot of the material might
be something like vulcanized rubber or some other light,
non-metallic material.. it would nicely burn up and leave
very little debris... if it was made of a metal.. very thin sheets
of something like a mylar baloon.. you might get weird angel
hair" showers too.

You could also fake UFO's nicely..as the craft would be very
light.. not having to carry any fuel.

Kev

originally posted by: wobbs62
a reply to: mirageman

Mirageman, regarding the tape, the copy that Georgia Bruni had, which I have heard bits of, is crystal clear.
It was a first generation copy that she had enhanced.

Right. It was apparently a copy dubbed off Halt's original micro-cassette that Sam Morgan (Halt's boss at the Twin bases after Col. Conrad) provided to her. The copy Ian Ridpath has on his website was also provided by Sam Morgan.

Did you have point to make about it?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Ok cheers. I'll check it out when I get a chance.

a reply to: mirageman

Great. Love educated second opinions.

But if true.. this would be QUITE classified.

I suppose that "dripping metal" might also
be burning mylar baloon metal.

One can really run with the concept.. if
it's indeed technologically possible in the
1980 timeframe.

But we are talking about a huge mylar baloon
thing, that gets power beamed to it.. which
tesla did in the early 1900's... it doesn't
seem very far fetched at all.

The "BTUFO" that I saw looked somewhat "puffy" to me
.. that was one of my first impressions. That
has been bothering me for some time.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

When I read about the Biefield - Brown effect, the timeframe, the flyer, the balsa wood, the tin foil ... my mind went "Rosw ... ? Oh no, don't go there!".

According to Jim Penniston recently which you can read on their "First responders" page. Jim claims no night four.

I would atrongly disagree re ian Ridpath been a tool.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

This is the 'alleged' landing site showing a British policeman and Capt. Verrano. We assume it was taken sometime around 10:30am on the morning of the 26th December 1980.



Now we have to make assumptions about it. Because nothing may have landed at all. Even Penniston, who later upgraded his story, didn't get beyond describing he 'thought' there was an object.

But it seems to be an awful small space for anything to have managed to have landed and then made a controlled lift off again however it was powered. I am also not sure why the US/Britain would be operating something secretly so close to a NATO airbase when the hostages were still captive in Iran and tensions in Poland were high.

We then have another couple of nights of activity in the woods after the USAF have been out to investigate and the British Police alerted about it. Very risky if this is a secret craft being tested. Could it involve the Soviets?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear