"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

originally posted by: mirageman
I'm doing this all from memory but Larry Warren is known as the man who broke the Rendlesham story as the 'whistleblower' and you can view this excerpt from his book here.

I am fairly sure that Warzinski is mistaken in that release.

There is also this documentary which is possibly the earliest one made on Rendlesham in English.

mirageman, you spoil me.

There is certainly nothing straightforward about this case. It's gripping, I can totally understand your prolonged interest. I keep thinking that I have captured it but then in from the side, I'm taken down by a sliding tackle. Good stuff!

Warren's book is great! His use of descriptives, the emotional narrative, all confirm the sense that I have got of there being some anticipation or expectation that something strange was going to happen. And you know, I keep reminding myself that these men were strangers in a strange land, Warren's description makes the base sound vast and planted amongst some similarly vast wasteland rather than a rural and picturesque part of Southern England, there may have been some incidence of inbreeding in the past but it is hardly Deliverance. But...if you're an outsider everything can seem strange, unfamiliar and unfriendly. And seemingly, according the Warren everything and most everyone was unfamiliar. His account sounds the trippiest of them all. There is a sense of suspended time in the way he records seeing people and describing them almost as still life objects of art. He says it was dreamlike and it feels that way, he seems to describe a series of mise en scenes rather than reporting an unfolding series of events. Intriguing. It's really, really strange. I love it!

originally posted by: mirageman
I'm sure that's enough to be going on with for now. I've highlighted a few links for you but please do your own digging.

I most definately will! Thanks

a reply to: Anaana

Larry Warren's book is very much in the first person and more personal than the Pope/Burroughs/Penniston penned - "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest". Their book is well written but we learn little about the personalities of the two witnesses.

Georgina Bruni's "You Can't Tell the People" is also a good book on the subject.

a reply to: mirageman

I managed to get Burroughs and Pennistons mixed up on the "who touched the craft" issue. I do believe that Penniston is telling what he believes is the truth and not intentionally lying about anything, and also believe that he was administered a drug by OSI and messed with by that agency of the Air Force and that this could account for discrepancies, but I haven't noticed any in his testimony before you mentioned them.

I am going to go through them all again just to look closer and find these irregularities you mention, because I am interested in this case, and there has been other witnesses coming forth I have heard that never spoke out way back, and kept silent for a long time, that confirmed the beams doing what they perceived as a grid search, and the one guy said the craft scanned over one of the weapon storage buildings and left after.

I have watched so many documentaries that include the accounting of the Rendlesham incident, all from different sources, like Unsolved Mysteries going back early, to the present where others including Halt have talked about details of just about everything that can be asked about it, and still pick up new things by watching them again, etc.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No problem. This case becomes a lot more confusing the more and more you look into it.

I remember delivering the newspapers one crisp autumn Sunday morning in 1983 when I pulled out the "News of the World" and the headline on the front page said "UFO Lands in Suffolk and That's Official". For me it really was a sort of "Wow!" moment.

But that was the 1980s and so almost everyone had to wait for snippets of information. "Unsolved Mysteries" was the first TV documentary I saw on the case. It still holds up well to this day. Especially the mentions that Heathrow Tower radar acknowledged something flew over East Anglia. A number of witnesses have mentioned it on camera and on various radio shows but it seems to have never been followed up in any capacity.

Then ITV did "Strange But True" here in Britain in the mid 90s. It was unusually open-minded. Unfortunately they added a "false start" where Mal Scurrah describes a totally unrelated UFO radar incident in November of 1980. This was edited into the Rendlesham piece but was never, ever part of the incident.

Since then the internet gradually became mainstream and the information overload began. Great in a way, as Rendlesham seems to be a much better documented case than Roswell. But it's also a case where the primary and even secondary witness rarely agree on the finer details.

Keep on digging!

BTW Penniston seems to have been deeply affected by his hypnosis in the mid-1990s. He seems to have even accepted it as true.

This is a reply to the entire thread... and will only address two issues that are common throughout many comments on this thread.

They are: Q # 1 ... How can it be true that medical records such as John Burroughs' could have been classified...Is this true? Is it sensible? What are the reasons? And, Q # 2 ... What caused his injuries (and several others present over the encounter) with the odd Air Form that emitted the Broad Band NIEMR?

It is true, his records...about a thousand pages, and to this day, still many hundreds, were in fact legally classified. In my 46 year career as a Medical Officer and physician with CIA [including as Staff Officer, Chief of Medical Intelligence/ Life Sciences Division, and Assistant National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology]...I had, until a year of so ago...only seen a handful of truly 'classified' medical records: those of Adolph Hitler, John Kennedy's Autopsy, and recently...John Burroughs.

The reasons were different. When I was denied these records after many requests (even though I have continuously held TS/SCI clearances for almost 50 years), I was able to quickly determine that the reasons were quite simple...medical records are not usually digital and are easily sequestered in multiple location...and almost impossible to find (these were and remain except for recent years in hard copy, scanned, and separated from FOIA access...and even mine.) The reasons are (I was told by current DoD and VA Records staffs) that "inside the doctors notes, the nursing notes, the specialist's note are a myriad of references to Special Access Projects and the names of OTHER "adjacent and ancillary Programs and projects that can not be disentangled, and which could uncover active and recent projects unrelated to Rendlesham. The reasons are not necessarily related to Rendlesham...and not all the connections relate to Rendlesham."

This makes some sense operationally, but no sense ethically...John was hurt. He needed care, then, often, and now. He had injuries we now understand are related to narrow RF bandwidths that only in some cases in the past five years have become linked to the specific etiology of cardiac and other injury he suffered. There are likely other persons and other injuries.

So: Q # 1 ... Yes, his records were classified. Some remain classified. The reasons are not entirely ethical. Thank god that a couple of Senators had the guts to push, and push to 'Disentangle' that which was legitimately classified from those records that were needed to make the right decision about injury sustained while on Active Duty. Period. It is/was true. It is sensible. It is not entirely the stuff to make us physicians very proud.

Q # 2 Broad-band Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation caused the injuries. The RF is identified in a dozen classified and a half-dozen unclassified studies on cardiological and neurological injuries ... not thousands of reports. Very, very few physicians even care about this arcane area of research...and fewer know about the injuries sustained by near-field (< 100 M) to humans. The data is sparse, it is not properly Peer-reviewed, it is not understood, it is not the subject of current research. And that is the truth.

The decision that was made to grant medical disability to John was just. Some of his records will remain classified. Those of us in Military and Intelligence Medicine can be proud the right decision was finally, if belatedly made; we should remain both vigilant and ashamed that our profession remains improperly darkened, and we should bring it to the light when we can.

[Disclosure Statements: 1) I did not clear this short statement with John Burroughs, his Attorney, anyone in my government including my Contracting Officers' Technical Representatives. 2) I am a Chief Medical Advisor to ATS. 3. I own a fraction of a fraction of a % of Stock in The Above Network, LLC. I receive no compensation. ]

Christopher C. Green MD, PhD, FAAFS

a reply to: KitGreen

Thanks for the clarification Kit, this is invaluable information that helps in piecing this long tenured, multifaceted, and very intriguing puzzle together.

a reply to: KitGreen

Amazing information Kit,

This reminds me of the December 29, 1980, Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and Colby Landrum incident near Dayton Texas.

They had similar issues with Air force personnel when they received the help from state senators in contacting the Air Force, whom assured the Senators they would assist Cash and the Landrums, but when interviewed, were coldly shut down and were asked how they knew that the helicopters they saw were military ones. I guess the Air Force people were unaware that CH-47 Chinooks belonged only to military at the time.

They were denied any help at all and couldn't find out what the radiation or exposure was, which made treatment a difficult proposition, according to the doctor that treated them. (At least this is what I gathered from reading about it.

The lid on the military being allowed to deal with these things in an ethical way has definitely darkened our country in a shameful way on occasion.

Oh yeah UFOs in da house!

I doubt the skeptics will care about his testamony, all they want is thier own UFOs to test out and fly around in before they believe anything.

It can be shouted from the mountain tops but the nay sayers will always cover thier eyes to the truth of various UFO sightings and documentation.

a reply to: KitGreen

Thanks for wading in

The reasons are (I was told by current DoD and VA Records staffs) that "inside the doctors notes, the nursing notes, the specialist's note are a myriad of references to Special Access Projects and the names of OTHER "adjacent and ancillary Programs and projects that can not be disentangled, and which could uncover active and recent projects unrelated to Rendlesham. The reasons are not necessarily related to Rendlesham...and not all the connections relate to Rendlesham."

These reasons might apply to Burroughs' case, but don't they raise bigger questions such as why aren't many thousands of current and ex- US military personnel (1940s to present) similarly finding their medical files being absent or classified? Is Burroughs in a minority of one that only he has been in proximity to 'special access projects,' or 'ancillary program and projects?'

How would sf86 forms be checked if medical records were being withheld from officials in positions similar to those you've held?

We all agree that it's a duty, and a service, to Vets that they receive medical support and especially after long careers are spent in service to country - like Burroughs' 27 years. He's earned the support. Nevertheless, it's difficult to see how his anterior mitral valve condition could be conclusively sourced to the day of the Rendlesham incident. I'm thinking about correlation and causation here.

Dr Green, thank you for taking the time to join this thread and assist in untangling the many threads.

originally posted by: KitGreen
Q # 2 Broad-band Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation caused the injuries. The RF is identified in a dozen classified and a half-dozen unclassified studies on cardiological and neurological injuries ... not thousands of reports. Very, very few physicians even care about this arcane area of research...and fewer know about the injuries sustained by near-field (< 100 M) to humans. The data is sparse, it is not properly Peer-reviewed, it is not understood, it is not the subject of current research. And that is the truth.

It may not specifically or directly be a subject of research but there is certainly a lot of activity around the fringes.

Oxidative stress is a longterm consequence of low dose radiation exposure (Clutton et al, 1996, Limoli et al 1998, Rugo and Schiestl, 2004) and this has led to consideration of long-lived radicals being involved (Spitz et al, 2004, Matsumoto and Ohnishi, 2004)

There is evidence that ion gated channels open and allow influx of calcium ions, which initiate apoptosis (Lyng et al, 2000, 2002b). Mitochondrial membrane depolarization also occurs (Maguire et al, 2005).

A ROLE FOR BIOELECTRIC EFFECTS IN THE INDUCTION OF BYSTANDER SIGNALS BY IONIZING RADIATION?
C. Mothersill, G. Moran, PhD; F. McNeill, PhD; M.D. Gow, BSc, J. Denbeigh,W. Prestwich, PhD, C.B. Seymour, PhD (2006)

Oxidative stress is being investigated as a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease, though as you say, it is still misunderstood.

Oxidative stress in cardiac and vascular myocytes describes the injury caused to cells resulting from increased formation of ROS and/or decreased antioxidant reserve. The increase in the generation of ROS seems to be due to impaired mitochondrial reduction of molecular oxygen, secretion of ROS by white blood cells, endothelial dysfunction, auto-oxidation of catecholamines, as well as exposure to radiation or air pollution. On the other hand, depression in the antioxidant reserve, which serves as a defense mechanism in cardiac and vascular myocytes, appears to be due to the exhaustion and/or changes in gene expression. The deleterious effects of ROS are mainly due to abilities of ROS to produce changes in subcellular organelles, and induce intracellular Ca2+-overload. Although the cause-effect relationship of oxidative stress with any of the cardiovascular diseases still remains to be established, increased formation of ROS indicating the presence of oxidative stress has been observed in a wide variety of experimental and clinical conditions. Furthermore, antioxidant therapy has been shown to exert beneficial effects in hypertension, atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, cardiomyopathies and congestive heart failure.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

But another possibility, as detailed in my earlier post, of calcification as the cause of his murmur.

Since the mid 1970's, when Adey discovered that extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) may affect the calcium ions efflux from various cells, bioeffects of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) have become the subject of growing interest and numerous research projects. At present, the fact that NIR exerts both stimulatory and inhibitory effects on different physiological cellular parameters is rather unquestionable. At the same time, some epidemiological studies suggest that exposure to EMF is potentially harmful even if its intensity is very low. It has been proved that thermal factors are not responsible for these effects, therefore nowadays, they are called 'non-thermal effects'. Our paper deals with three different aspects of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, bioelectromagnetism, electromagnetobiology and electromagnetic bioinformation. Firstly, we describe how EMF and photons can be produced within a living cell, how biological cycles are controlled, and what are the features of endogenous electromagnetic radiation. Secondly, we discuss various facets of external EMF interactions with living matter, focusing on extremely-low-frequencies, radio- and microwaves. Possible mechanisms of these interactions are also mentioned. Finally, we present a short overview of current theories which explain how electromagnetic couplings may control an open and dissipative structure, namely the living organism. The theory of electromagnetic bioinformation seems to explain how different physiological processes are triggered and controlled, as well as how long-range interactions may possibly occur within the complex biological system. The review points out that the presented research data must be assessed very carefully since its evaluation is crucial to set the proper limits of EMF exposure, both occupational and environmental. The study of biological effects of non-ioinizing radiation may also contribute to the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods.

Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation
Fedorowski A1, Steciwko A.

It is known that altering magnetic field produces an electric field and vice versa, a varying electric field generates a magnetic field. Because of this interdependence, both fields jointly are considered a single entity - the electromagnetic field (59). Alternating electric fields have a wide range of effects on living systems. At extremely low frequencies, electric fields stimulate excitable tissues through membrane depolarisation, stimulate bone growth, and
accelerate fracture healing (60-63). As the electric field frequency increases, the stimulatory effect disappears, ending in the so-called thermal effect, when tissue heating becomes a dominant event (64). In-between the desired stimulatory and undesired heating effects, there is this mostly unexplored biological potential of RF/MW radiation at a nonthermal level of exposure.

Considering the Fröhlich hypothesis, Pokomy at al. (65) investigated the non-thermal cellular effects of radiation in the microwave range. It was concluded that the observed intracellular changes are a consequence of macromolecular chain resonance caused by external radiation. In electrobiological entity such as a single cell, internal electromagnetic field created by own polar intracellular structures enters into a coherent state with external field, which means that oscillating electric field of low strength could cause significant non-thermal biological changes. As it was mentioned previously, it occurs when the wavelength of radiation is in the range of the properties of biological tissue.

BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS IN RESPONSE TO RADIOFREQUENCY/MICROWAVE EXPOSURE
Ana Marija MARJANOVIC, Ivan PAVICIC, and Ivancica TROSIC (2012)

I don't think that there is any reason to doubt that Burroughs injuries were a result of prolonged exposure to non-ionising radiation, however, given that that exposure could have come from any number of sources, most of which are far more likely to be terrestrial of origin, and more over related to some form of military technology, aren't the DoD setting a dangerous precedent here...unless they can cover it all up and blame it on either the aliens, or failing that some atmospheric phenomenon, a decision to award damages on the basis on NIEMR could prove disasterous, don't you think?

Thanks again for your time.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: mirageman

I managed to get Burroughs and Pennistons mixed up on the "who touched the craft" issue. I do believe that Penniston is telling what he believes is the truth and not intentionally lying about anything, and also believe that he was administered a drug by OSI and messed with by that agency of the Air Force and that this could account for discrepancies, but I haven't noticed any in his testimony before you mentioned them.

Reading Warren's book and he seems to think that Penniston is, on some level, 'in on it' and claims that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up. I was kind of floored when I read that, it was not what I had come to expect from my reading so far, although I had noted general animosity amongst the wider group of men directly and indirectly involved in the 'incident'. He also notes Penniston telling them to 'shut up' when they tried talking about it the morning after the night before, even though Penniston had stayed on base that time. Raises a number of possibilities, one of which is that Penniston, in essence is telling a 'truth' if not the truth, but certainly not the whole truth.

His hypnosis is unconvincing, compared to Burroughs where he is clearly looking and experiencing, narrating what he sees, Penniston appears to be recalling events, and his body language suggests he is at least unconvinced by parts of what he is saying. The clips I've found are heavily edited though and I think it is possible that he is not consciously aware that he is doubtful about his recollection of events, that one side of him at least doesn't believe a word he is saying. Could he be that divided and not know it? I don't know, from my own experience though, I consider that possible.

For the same reason, this video is interesting...



It's a long video, but if you're not interested in what they are saying (and it is difficult to listen to, the sound quality leaves much to be desired), you can just skim through, but watch Penniston's behaviour. I am struggling to believe that he could be consciously aware of his behaviour because of how rude it is if he is. If someone other than him is speaking, excepting Burroughs, he places himself, standing, between that person and the audience, or behind them, but again standing, he does this less, and it can be interpreted as whether he agrees or disagrees with what is being said, in which case he doesn't agree with much. Even more so when he shows total disdain by exiting the stage. At that point Burroughs does something interesting. Noticing that Penniston is absent, he looks around, can't find him, and then places his arm protectively over the back of Penniston's empty chair. A very nurturing gesture and pose. For Burroughs it is all about trusting and looking out for Penniston. And for Penniston, consciously or otherwise, it is about his ownership of the truth. On some level Penniston is sufficiently aware of what happened to ascertain what is and is not accurate information and what are perhaps expansions to the narrative, including what he himself says on the subject. He either believes in only one truth based upon his own perception of events, or it could be, as Warren suggests, because he created the 'scene' that everyone else experienced and while they think it was 'real', he knows that it was largely smoke and mirrors.

Numerous possibilities, but I certainly think that Penniston is key to understanding the situation.

mirageman

I think that this takes us back to considering the possibility of there being a nuclear element here, not in relation to Burroughs injuries, or at least not directly, but in terms of what could Woodbridge and Bentwaters possibly have to conceal in such an elaborate way (and leaving aside, momentarily, the observations of a flying object).

Penniston again, from his biography...

Born in Monroe, Wisconsin, in 1954. James was raised in the mid-west. After graduation from High School. James entered the Air Force in 1973 and was immediately chosen for special duty with the SAC Elite Guard in Omaha Nebraska, where he worked security for the SAC Command Post, General Officers, Congressmen and the President of the United States. James volunteered for re-assignment in 1975 to RAF Alconbury England where he work flight operations. He was then reassigned in 1977 to Malmstrom A.F.B. Montana, as a Flight Security Controller for the protection and launch readiness of twenty Minuteman ICBM’s, In June 1980, James received orders to the infamous 81st Tactical Fighter Wing at RAF Bentwaters England, then the largest tactical fighter wing in the Air Force. While there, James work flight operations till the incident and then was promoted to the position of Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge (NCOIC) of Security Police Plans and Programs.

In 1980, I was assigned to the largest Tactical Fighter Wing in the Air Force, RAF Woodbridge in England. I was the senior security officer in charge of base security.
At that time I held a top-secret US and NATO security clearance and was responsible for the protection of war-making resources for that base.

www.therendleshamforestincident.com...

As bolded, we're looking at experience with providing security for ICBM's, top secret US and NATO clearance, not to be sniffed at...and he was promoted following the incident, so presumably what he did or didn't do was done well.

To put that in context...

The 1972 SALT treaty froze the number of ICBM launchers of both the USA and the USSR at existing levels, and allowed new submarine-based SLBM launchers only if an equal number of land-based ICBM launchers were dismantled. Subsequent talks, called SALT II, were held from 1972 to 1979 and actually reduced the number of nuclear warheads held by the USA and USSR. SALT II was never ratified by the United States Senate, but its terms were nevertheless honored by both sides until 1986, when the Reagan administration "withdrew" after accusing the USSR of violating the pact.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative as well as the MX and Midgetman ICBM programs.

en.wikipedia.org...

In 1979, NATO ministers decided to deploy BGM-109G Gryphon Ground Launched Cruise and Pershing II IRBM missiles to counter the growing Soviet SS-20 intermediate range ballistic missile threat. RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth were selected as the beddown sites for the GLCM. The 501st Tactical Missile Wing (TMW) was activated at RAF Greenham Common in July 1982 and the 303d Tactical Missile Wing at RAF Molesworth in December 1986.

en.wikipedia.org...

It seems that Penniston's expertise would have been needed at a base that was receiving ICBMs, or where they were being assembled perhaps? At that time, all that flurry of activity as soon as NATO decided to deploy, you'd think Penniston would be called to do what he had loads of experience doing? Unless he already was doing that at Woodbridge/Bentwaters perhaps?

a reply to: Anaana

Hello Anaana. Sorry I am pushed for time this weekend so will come back to you later when I have completely digested what you have posted.

I actually only jumped in to say I noticed Kit Green's comments here on ATS have been posted on Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles site and John Burroughs has also responded.

“I am stunned. I didn't know this was coming. I want to thank Dr. Green for being open now about what has been going on behind the scenes. When I met with Dr. Green in July 2013, he saw how ill I was, he went out of his way to get the proper treatment and surgery I needed and I will always be grateful to him for his help.”

Source : earthfiles.com

Kind words indeed and we should not forget the human cost involved here. For John Burroughs justice has finally been done. But not without having him having to fight for it and get some seriously high ranking people involved. Thankfully he is still alive and that is actually the most important thing.

Holy cow, this thread. Even Kit Green gets in on it?! Good lord, whats next?

It seems that Penniston's expertise would have been needed at a base that was receiving ICBMs, or where they were being assembled perhaps?

He would have been involved with GLCM stuff.

Based on the injuries, does anyone know how strong the NIEMR emissions were?

a reply to: Anaana

Hi Anaana, you said earlier in a post;

Reading Warren's book and he seems to think that Penniston is, on some level, 'in on it' and claims that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up.

I have also read the book 'Left At East Gate' from Larry Warren and Peter Robbins and even twice, but I have for as far as I remember it correct never read that Larry has said in there
"that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up."

So can you tell me where you have read that, in which chapter or perhaps even on which page.

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: spacevisitor
I have also read the book 'Left At East Gate' from Larry Warren and Peter Robbins and even twice, but I have for as far as I remember it correct never read that Larry has said in there
"that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up."

So can you tell me where you have read that, in which chapter or perhaps even on which page.

Thanks in advance.

No problem at all, although no page numbers on the online version that I have been reading and that mirageman linked me to back a few posts (just follow that link). The actual text is...

“Steve said he’d learned that a few men had been sent out to the forest to create a false landing site, Penniston among them.”

Part two, Chapter two “The next day”, 8th page, 3rd paragraph.

In context, assuming there was an initial landing site, they were sent to set up a decoy site, or assuming there was not a landing site, they were creating a cover story for whatever they didn't want known. It is fairly ambiguous, and from what you now say, I don't suppose that it is cleared up any later in the book which is a disappointment, but hardly surprising all things considered.

According to Warren's version of events, in the immediate aftermath there seems to have been a concerted effort to drill into all those concerned that they were dealing with UFOs/UAPs, and it is also apparent from all versions of the story, excepting perhaps Halt's, that that is generally felt to be an inadequate explanation of what happened and the disparity between individual experiences. Talking about it amongst themselves, at the time, was discouraged and Warren saw Penniston as party to that, telling them to shut up at breakfast. Tensions and divisions created mistrust amongst the rank and file, further impeding the possibility that talking it through could clarify matters.

I have yet to see an interview with Warren, but from Penniston and Burroughs, I am seeing genuine frustration, consternation and an inability to reconcile given explanations with the events as they percieve them. And part of that seems to be down to the fractured nature of their recollections of those nights and the period immediately following. Penniston may not have gone to set up a fake landing site, or anyone else for that matter, the point is that Warren thought he did, or was told he did. Whatever happened to those men, they were left to fester that experience in isolation, rather than find meaning in it, or reason, or whatever, by talking about 'it' as the collective that experienced 'it'. It was bound to explode out eventually, and I cannot help but feel as though that is an intended consequence.

a reply to: Anaana

Thanks for your reply Anaana.
Here is how I read it.
In your first post you said;

Reading Warren's book and he seems to think that Penniston is, on some level, 'in on it' and claims that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up.

And in answering my question to you about that you said;

The actual text is...

“Steve said he’d learned that a few men had been sent out to the forest to create a false landing site, Penniston among them.”

So what you said in your first post about that it was Larry who said in his book 'Left At East Gate' "that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up." was not correct right?

a reply to: Kandinsky

These reasons might apply to Burroughs' case, but don't they raise bigger questions such as why aren't many thousands of current and ex- US military personnel (1940s to present) similarly finding their medical files being absent or classified? Is Burroughs in a minority of one that only he has been in proximity to 'special access projects,' or 'ancillary program and projects?'

Hello mate. I think many of us thought the same thing after reading Kit's comments. Allegedly Penniston's file was also similarly classified. But he seems to have not have to pursue things like John Burroughs. So what really was the deal here?

originally posted by: spacevisitor
So what you said in your first post about that it was Larry who said in his book 'Left At East Gate' "that it was Penniston who went back and set the 'landing scene' up." was not correct right?

Yes, you're right. I should have more accurately put it, that Warren claims that Steve Longaro told him that Penniston, and others, had been sent to the woods to set up a false landing site. I apologise, I was attempting to summarise my overall impression of Warren's perception of events based on my reading of the book so far, which is why I did prefix my comments with "seems to". That settled, is that comment clarified later in the book? Did Warren believe what Longaro said to be the truth? Is the setting up of a false landing site confirmed by Penniston? Or denied?

Thanks.

ETA. Also, the context is unclear, when, allegedly, were Penniston and others sent to set up a false landing site? I am presuming that it was after the fact, and due to the previous nights activities attracting unwanted attention. But why set up a 'false landing site', as in, if you are covering up for a UFO landing, you don't use a UFO landing as the cover...do you? So what exactly would a 'false landing site' achieve other than to move the attention to a new location? It just doesn't make any sense, not least of all because it is not on MoD land (is it?), so they had no hope of containing the 'scene'. I don't understand why they would need a false anything, wouldn't it be better to destroy it, grab a bit of rock and say a meteor struck, or a burnt piece of metal from a sputnik. No one seems to have been thinking clearly. I suspect everyone was suffering from oxidative stress, and I keep getting reminded of an old black and white film, can't remember it's name, where the whole village falls asleep.

a reply to: Anaana

Hi Anaana. It is quite some years ago that I read Larry Warren's excellent book "Left at East Gate" and also viewed the videos of the hypnosis and even the Woodbridge conference in 2010 you have highlighted. Plus my memory isn't errr... what was I about to say.

Now perhaps you don't know but for many years, although Larry Warren blew the case wide open in the early 1980s, he was for years discredited by the other main witnesses as not being there and accused of running with Adrian Bustinza's story. (He's another character he despite playing a major part in the logistics of Colonel Halt's night and has chosen to remain in the background and largely silent about this case.

Penniston was the senior of the three men in the forest investigation on 25th/26th Dec 1980 and his story has become the most expansive down the years.

I have problems with how he it has expanded over the years and even how he describes returning to forest in daylight on Boxing Day morning 1980 and making plaster casts of the landing marks allegedly left by the craft. I've already covered that here : www.abovetopsecret.com...