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

a reply to: mirageman

Yup. When someone else has a story about burning beams I'll listen to it but I'm not buying Nevilles for all the above reasons.

Jumping on UFOs?

In my very kindest of moments I've given the benefit of the doubt to the element of confusion.
Whoever it was, might have approached it the first night and it got away. So on the second night he tried to grab/jump on it to prevent it from getting away again.
As in "not so fast you little....."

That is not what I think actually happened its just one way I've tried to resolve that issue to myself.

To be honest, I cannot possibly think of any reason why an allegedly terrified man would do something so irresponsible with an unknown, possibly dangerous object.

a reply to: Guest101

Do you mean Penniston as the main source for the book?

I thought it was a guy named "Steve" who met them in a pub, gave them a story Halt says this man was was never part of and drew the ufo as a traditional saucer - not a triangle?

Or do you mean, he contributed to a chapter? I don't suppose you have the page number, as I don't remember about the legs retracting.

Randles has just confirmed that Halt said about the climbing during the interview with him.

Burroughs denies climbing the craft, but admits losing his memory as he ran towards the night on the Dark Matters radio show with Linda and Larry.

originally posted by: Guest101


A confused witness, or a confused editor? The program is merely a set of interview fragments that are stitched together to construct a juicy story. Who knows where that fragment of Nevels came from? Maybe he was referring to another case he heard of or read about.

It's possible. But watch the clip again it's around 19:40 in



Here's how the clip with Nevilles is set up.

At around 19:40 in the clip goes as follows ((my comments will be in yellow):

Narrator : "Nick [Pope] wants to know what happened at the nuclear bunker. Colonel Halt was a mile from the base. So Nick tracks down Bentwaters Disaster Preparedness Officer - Monroe Nevilles. In the days after the incident Nevilles investigates the area. What he discovers is chilling."

(Nevilles was also with Halt a mile or more away from base on that night)

Nevilles : "One of the light beams...it came down, actually penetrated through one of the bunkers that had the nuclear weapons in it. It actually burned a hole through the bunker there and was able to get through to the site where the weapons were."

Now unless there is another incident involving a UFO burning a hole into the nuclear weapons storage area that Monroe Nevilles would know about I think it's pretty obvious that he is talking about Bentwaters/Woodbridge.

a reply to: mirageman

Burroughs does talk about running towards the lights and Bustinza (not Cabansag!!) hitting the ground. Buztinza describes the image as snowy, and a silhouette in the light that was not like Burroughs. This is the same "snowy" image with silhouettes that he saw with Warren's encounter.

Isn't that odd? That Burrough's own recollections of lights are connected to Warrens - by Bustinza. Both of them remember Bustinza being with them.

Warren and Halt have indecently claimed that Burroughs tried to climb the craft.

Perhaps they both are referencing tales of the encounter Burroughs describes with Bustinza describes the first night?

Running at the light and suddenly realising he was at the other side of the field and past where it was? Isn't that a little similar to Cabansag's 'official statement'?

It's hard to isolate the disinformation I think we all know exists:

- You can't dismiss Halt because of the tape
- Yet his claim of climbing is dismissed by Burroughs
- Burroughs admits running towards the light wth Bustinza - but not attempting to climb it
- Warren claims that he had his own encounter
- It's hard to dismiss because of Bustinza who adds details that connects the encounter to the Burroughs / Bustinza one.

I'm not going to even tackle Penniston unless Guest101 can substantiate / clarify Penniston's role in SkyCrash.

Halt - Contradicts Warren and Burroughs- what about Penniston's claims? If not, why not?
Penniston - Contradicts (openly) Burroughs
Burroughs - Contradicts Warren and Penniston
Warren - Apart from disliking Halt's behaviour to him, has only minor points of difference with Bustinza

Maybe it's best to take a reductionist approach and eliminate:

- Warren because we have enough evidence without him
- Bustinza, because is it just me, or does he seem incredibly uncomfortable to the point of being coached or coerced in the radio interviews
- Halts statements beyond the recording

Which leave us with the following first hand evidence and consequences:
- Halts tape
- Burroughs recollections of the light
- Burroughs injuries
- Kits statement about non ionising radiation
- Possibly the report on electromagnetic weaponry i found?

Unless we dismiss Kit's report, the Condign reference and John's injuries as an ongoing coverup to hide some sort of conventional accident that everyone is working to hide...

a reply to: mirageman

I don't think that can be editing... but the constant generation of new facts by so many airmen, so late is on, is disturbing.

- Genuinely confused ?
- Told what to say?
- Just wants to be involved?

Discounting, for the moment, a total coverup of something conventional by all involved, I'd like to say I think Tulpa is right.

Burroughs ran towards the object to stop it escaping again. This mutated into him climbing on the craft for Halt and Warren. The alternative is intentional disinformation...

One thing is certain - if his injuries were related to the RFI it had to be because he got the closest. This is substantiated by himself and Bustinza, and indirectly totally removes Penniston's statements, if you think about them...

a reply to: ctj83


What I was saying is that Rendlesham is full of one witness saying this that is totally different from another. That and the fact that the story grows almost exponentially as the years go by. 1980 was also around the time various narratives were being introduced stateside into the UFO world by people like RIchard Doty. So much so that American Ufology has continued to promote that mythology over and over again. Mainly by professional UFO infotainers. Whose main purpose is to make money, rather than solve the mystery, by perpetuating lies and myths as facts.

What we need is to find the 'Anti-Doty'.

I would say that at least some witnesses cannot be trusted. They may be willing participants in a campaign to discredit others involved, enjoy the modicum of 'fame' that they have found on the paranormal podcast and radio show circuit, or have genuinely been messed around with and have lost a grasp on what is really true.

For reasons we may never know I think Rendlesham has been given 'a treatment' to make sure the story remains confusing.

Munro Nevilles uses the word "penetrated", not burned, cut through etc and I suspect there is a reason for that. One can penetrate something leaving no residual damage and that could be exactly what he means. Now, you can argue quite legitimately that, he says that as there is no evidence it actually happened and that would be the only way he could introduce the idea into the whole scheme of things. On the other hand, he could be saying , it did indeed penetrate the weapons bay and it left some sort of evidence inside the bay, yet none on top of it.

It could be that, on taking an inventory of the warheads stored in the bunker, that some or all, had somehow been affected by an unknown source and it is assumed that this was the beam that was seen. Don't forget that, Nevilles claims that he was hand picked by the base commander Ted Conrad and it was Lt. Bruce Englund who visited his accommodation that night and co-opted him onto Halt's team. Given one of his chief responsibilities was to take radiation readings and photographs of any "accident/damage/disaster, then there does seem to be a genuine case to put forward that, he might well have been asked to photograph the bunkers interior in the aftermath of the incident and that is what he is referring to?

One is perfectly correct in being circumspect and wary of those who "come late to the party" however, in Nevilles' case, we know for certain he was the same Nevilles who appears on Halt's tape and he was responsible for taking Geiger counter readings. One also needs to note, that as far as I can ascertain, no-one present on those nights has come out and said Nevilles' account is wrong/fictitious/deliberately misleading, that in itself is interesting.

There's also Gregory Battram (A1C) who, as far as i know has kept mostly quiet about the third nights' activities. It is Battram who supposedly informed Ted Conrad that "the UFO had returned in a shroud of mist in the forest".

Battram's tale

Given the base is now decommissioned, then surely there's no reason for the MOD not to allow a camera crew into the bunkers in question to film them? It could be that is what Nevilles is hinting at by speaking as he has?

a reply to: mirageman

I agree 100%.

It's funny that the Bennewitz affair is connected with the idea of bringing down satellites using lasers on the star fire range, when Randles (reporting a HOTOL scientists warning her not to continue investigating and "APEN") introduced the idea of Brown Bear.

A Brown Bear was, apparently, a downed soviet satellite.

According to the HOTOL scientist the satellite re entry path did not look correct. He suspected that the COSMOS satellite had been controlled and brought down in the forrest for retrieval.

Both stories feature a technology I consider implausible and pointless, (versus capture in space), laser control of satellites, re entry control and the ability to prevent total burnup or destruction on impact.

That story, at least connect to Doty for sure. It also connects in some way to "APEN" and Randles. Add in the sci fi tropes and it makes it near impossible to figure anything out

What an utter mess.

a reply to: FireMoon

Great perspective. Makes sense.

The return of the "mist". That really bugs me.

Do you know how the warheads could be disabled?

Hastings has spoken about MinuteMen having their circuitry burned out with induced square waves.

Would a warhead have navigational circuits - or would they be in the missile?

Or were they not really seperate, I wonder?

a reply to: FireMoon

Except Nevilles definitely uses the word burned . See my post above:


link

a reply to: mirageman

I also wondered if "burned through" might've been just a figure of speech but he goes on to say there was a hole.

Firemoon.

With regard to going and filming the site, they let them in to film a terrible movie so I don't think its still restricted. Might be a good idea to get permission first.

Does anyone know which bunker it was exactly?

a reply to: mirageman

Ta for that Mirage, hmm yes he does indeed say "burned a hole through" and then doesn't give any details of the actual damage which does seem strange. This probably is just coincidence however, I have noticed that, if you zoom into the image here on Goggle Earth, the image loses its' definition altogether over the end of one bunker and another complete one.

Bentwaters google earth

It seems a tad strange that they had to make a composite image and chose to use one from a day that had more cloud to complete it when, there seems no reason not to have used the same images from the clear day?

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Guest101

Do you mean Penniston as the main source for the book?

I thought it was a guy named "Steve" who met them in a pub, gave them a story Halt says this man was was never part of and drew the ufo as a traditional saucer - not a triangle?

Or do you mean, he contributed to a chapter? I don't suppose you have the page number, as I don't remember about the legs retracting.

Penniston spoke with Brenda and Dot. He didn’t use his real name but ‘James Archer’.
Steve Roberts was an entirely different person.

Here's the whole fragment from sky crash

a reply to: Guest101

That's very interesting Guest101 - I'd not picked up on this before.

Here is what has gotten my attention. In later years, Penniston has described the craft as being a black triangle, with lights under the surface. I've always pictured the material as being similar to, if not, black smoked perspex.

The colour was an off-white and it looked dirty. There was a blue light on top, with red lights and a white light in the middle and a brighter white light coming out of the bottom. Archer and Burroughs followed the craft as it moved from the forest into a small field, the on next to the Boast home. Here it made some cows run around in panic. It then let out a sudden, intense burst of white

Here he described the craft as a "dirty white". This is the same colour as Warren describes the pyramid craft in his encounter with Bustinza. White tiles, and looking old.

The craft Pennison describes here, is much higher than is now envisioned. It is described as 8ft high.

This is much closer to what Warren describes, but his seems bigger still.

I'd like to suggest that they are describing the same craft, but Warren's description is with it stood on the back panel, (rotated -90 degrees) as opposed to a side panel.

What an awful, confusing mess this is.

a reply to: ctj83

What an awful, confusing mess, indeed.

You'd think, with all the available information, it might be possible to piece together what happened that night.

If I was the suspicious, paranoid type, I'd say that maybe someone, somewhere, doesn't really want that to happen.
Its as if two jigsaws have been mixed together and there's a lot of blue sky in each one.

Almost deliberate!

At the core of all such reports there are the main witnesses and it has to be said, it's sadly, remarkably rare for us to hear first hand exactly what happened at a given time and place. More recent UFO documentaries have begun to change this and are beginning to move away from non involved talking heads, to featuring raw testimony and that's something I am pleased to see.

Given that, I think these two videos featuring Larry warren are well worth a gander. Note how Warren has no hesitation, no having to think twice about the vast majority of his testimony. Warren does not to my mind, come across as trying to remember a script rather, simply recounting memories that were deeply etched in his head. Now yes, one can perfectly possibly argue, how much of those memories are real and how much are constructed/deliberately planted. The question then of course, is by whom and for what purpose, if if indeed there was any purpose in it all past mere obfuscation.

To those who find then plethora of descriptions utterly confusing this I will say as I have said before. In sightings/experiences that are close up and personal, it is my experience that, the closer multiple witnesses descriptions and experiences are, the more chance that it is an attempted hoax or people flat out making stuff up for other reasons. One of the ways whatever this phenomenon is. seems to to hide itself is, by presenting itself as something often wholly different to people standing next to each other. That is, the interaction seems often, to be tailored to suit the individual.

It now seems that, the antipathy towards Warren and his testimony stems from the fact, it was his actions that forced Halt into the light of the public glare and to a degree the same with Burroughs and Pennistion . The debunkers were always going to pile on on any perceived weak link and in this case in Warren, they've picked the wrong person. Anyway those are my thoughts it is up to the individual to make their own mind up about Warren's testimony at least here, it is presented without interruption and exactly where incidents occurred. One thing I would remind people of is this, soil samples were taken from the area where Warren says he saw the mist/craft/beings and they were shown to be significantly different from samples from the surrounding area. The soil samples taken from where Warren says he had his experience were almost impervious to water and showed signs of vitrification, the sand content having been turned to glass.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: ctj83
You'd think, with all the available information, it might be possible to piece together what happened that night.

Let me help you with that:
bentwaters1980.proboards.com...

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: ctj83

If I was the suspicious, paranoid type, I'd say that maybe someone, somewhere, doesn't really want that to happen.
Its as if two jigsaws have been mixed together and there's a lot of blue sky in each one.

Almost deliberate!

According to John Burroughs, the story of Jim Penniston changed after Penniston’s hypnotic regressions, which took place in September and November 1994.

All interviews and public appearances of Penniston are from after that date, except for his 1983 meeting with Brenda Butler and Dot Street.
His notebook and ever growing story also came after that date. John Burroughs never saw him taking any notes.

That’s why I think the story Jim told Brenda and Dot is much closer to the truth than everything that came later. It also matches the original witness statements quite well, albeit that these statements contain a watered down version. Burroughs and Cabansag have stood to their story from day one. Only Jim has made it bigger over the years. Maybe it is just his persona, or maybe there are other reasons, we probably will never know.

a reply to: FireMoon

If I am correct the MoD no longer own Bentwaters as it was sold off to a private business. You can actually rent out parts of the old airbase now.



Why not have a blast in one of the old bunkers?



If something burned a hole through the steel and concrete then I dare say emergency repairs would have been made immediately and people would have to have known about it. This is why I don't trust Neville's story about it. It may be as innocent as him hearing or mishearing something from another person or even reading it on the internet somewhere!. But he doesn't mention it in earlier interviews.

a reply to: Guest101

I am not sure when it was filmed but I think ITVs "Strange But True" episode on Rendlesham was filmed before Penniston underwent hypnosis. It certainly looks like it was filmed at the height of the English Summer and the epsiode first aired on 9th December 1994.

Penniston's story starts around 5 mins in. He mentions no photos, no sketches, no touching of the craft and no binary code. He does mention strange symbols.........



And he sums it up nicely what happened at the very start in part 2. It's a bit more expansive than his original statement but yet to receive the add-ons that each TV interview would bring to the case in the following 20 years.





Here's part 3 for posterity. Penniston sums up that he was told to keep quiet (no mention of sodium pentathol) and Brenda Butler appears as well.

a reply to: mirageman

Emergency repairs being known about sounds a bit of an understatement.
Exactly how much steel and concrete are we talking here?
That stuff takes time and usually a crew of men plus equipment plus deliveries plus disruption of normal routines/non-use of the area etc. Etc. Etc.

Or did Neville's rustle up a wheelbarrow full of concrete and just plug it up?

I may be a dreamer at heart, but I trust the storage of nuclear weapons is something that those in charge may take quite seriously.

Its only a small point when he makes the comment about burning a hole but there's a lot to think about. You can't let a statement like that go unchallenged.

When Skycrash first appeared it was clear that the story was going to evolve as facts got dragged out. But, I fear, this gave the green light to those concerned that only part of the story was known.
By publishing, they showed their hand to the other player.

Now they could turn over an ace or a joker and we'd be non the wiser. Something which has been known for some time.