"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

a reply to: mirageman

No idea!

I've read cases of UK soldiers having parts of their medical records redacted for reasons of national security and expect it's the same procedure for most armed forces personnel.

It isn't clear to me why Burroughs alone would have his files 'classified' beyond the reach of the VA, Dr Green or legal representatives.

It's Rendlesham through and through isn't it? Lots of smoke, people blowing smoke and folk arguing where the fire is. An uncertain mess.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I think it's pretty apparent that one of two things happened at Rendelsham Forest in December, 1980...

1. Aliens came down to see what we're up to (or any of an unthinkable number of motivations we can't fathom) and didn't care if they were seen by a handful of Earth's Military Security folks, and they either meant no harm but did some harm in spite of that, or, they intended to harm some humans and did so.

2. The military black ops people were testing something, it went horribly wrong, or not, and they lied for 30+ years about it.

1 is fascinating and maybe scary, 2 is just plain disgusting.

originally posted by: mirageman
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...

I saw a press conference where Halt pulled out the plaster casts, or some plaster casts, I thought, for some reason that it was odd that he had them, and then I recalled the transcript of his recording and he is pretty much obsessed with people not standing on the 'impressions' and he gets quite shirty about it for a moment.

Penniston's a tough one. I really want to believe that he is lying, but when I watch him talk about it, he is uncomfortable and embarassed at some points, he doesn't seem to trust his own narrative, it's like he knows that it sounds like crap but that's what he's got and what can he do about it. The more recent stuff in particular, he doesn't really want to talk about it at all, but then, my more suspicious side does wonder if he is holding off on a book deal where he rips the whole thing open and makes a huge pile of cash while pointing at his buddies for believing in the UFO story. I don't see it. With multiple people involved there is bound to be some expansion of his narrative, as he takes on board their version of events and finds ways that that relates to his own.

a reply to: Anaana

Yes there were no ICBMs at Bentwaters. US Cruise and Pershing missiles were deployed in the UK elsewhere in the 1980s but Bentwaters held only 'battlefield' nuclear weapons.

I might be wrong but I don't think Woodbridge housed any nuclear ordinance. The majority of the Aircraft based at Bentwaters were non-nuclear A10 Warthogs (tank busters) built to destroy the Soviet T72 and T80 main battle tanks if they should they ever flood across the West German border. So the tactical nuclear warheads that were housed there would probably be for back up bombers (F111s) in the event of a conflict. Probably making Bentwaters one of the first targets for a Warsaw Pact attack.

So Penniston's security role was quite an important one within the whole of the NATO alliance and given his previous experience we can only speculate and where he lies in this great mystery beyond what he and others have told. I also agree looking at that Woodbridge conference his body language is very peculiar compared to the other speakers.

Thank you for adding a new angle to all of this and some things I have never thought about.

I have always wondered if Penniston has been set up in some way (or willingly) to create smokescreens in this case and take it away from whatever really went on. I believe he has said that once he went through his hypnosis he 'remembered' things differently. That was in the early/mid 90s.

He also claims he was drugged during his own Dec 1980 'debriefings' (somewhat unusual in peace time) .

See what you make of his body language around 25:00 mins (his visible reaction is about 25:40 on the video). Is he genuinely concerned or acting?




By the way that video is probably one of the better ones on the Rendlesham case although it's getting on for 10 years old. So it's probably worth a look. Rendlesham , even if you don't think UFOs, time travellers or aliens are involved in all of this it is still one mysterious case and one that continues to unravel to this day.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think it's pretty apparent that one of two things happened at Rendelsham Forest in December, 1980...

1. Aliens came down to see what we're up to (or any of an unthinkable number of motivations we can't fathom) and didn't care if they were seen by a handful of Earth's Military Security folks, and they either meant no harm but did some harm in spite of that, or, they intended to harm some humans and did so.

2. The military black ops people were testing something, it went horribly wrong, or not, and they lied for 30+ years about it.

1 is fascinating and maybe scary, 2 is just plain disgusting.

Hi Mark,

Yep after 30 odd years looking into this I would say it probably all comes down to either of these options.

The fertilizer truck, military police car, ARRS helicopter and even the much better sceptical theory based around the Orfordness lighthouse simply don't cover all the bases (pun intended).

As far as the newer theory that it was time travellers put forward in recent years. Well that is even harder to pull off than interstellar space travel because to travel back or forward in time means you have to also calculate the movement of everything in the universe as well.

I would have gone with option 1 until the last few years. I am leaning towards option 2 more and more these days.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think it's pretty apparent that one of two things happened at Rendelsham Forest in December, 1980...

1. Aliens came down to see what we're up to (or any of an unthinkable number of motivations we can't fathom) and didn't care if they were seen by a handful of Earth's Military Security folks, and they either meant no harm but did some harm in spite of that, or, they intended to harm some humans and did so.

2. The military black ops people were testing something, it went horribly wrong, or not, and they lied for 30+ years about it.

1 is fascinating and maybe scary, 2 is just plain disgusting.

There are a few other potential explanations...

Hysterical contagion occurs when a group of people show signs of a physical problem or illness, when in reality there are psychological and social forces at work.

Hysterical contagion is a strong form of emotional contagion, which describes the copycat effect of imitative behaviour based on the power of suggestion and word of mouth influence, because the symptoms often include those associated with clinical hysteria.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mass psychogenic illness (MPI), also called mass sociogenic illness or just sociogenic illness,[1] is "the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involving excitation, loss or alteration of function, whereby physical complaints that are exhibited unconsciously have no corresponding organic aetiology."[2] MPI is distinct from other collective delusions, also included under the blanket terms of mass hysteria, in that MPI causes symptoms of disease, though there is no organic cause.
There is a clear preponderance of female victims.[1] The DSM-IV-TR does not have specific diagnosis for this condition but the text describing conversion disorder states that "In 'epidemic hysteria', shared symptoms develop in a circumscribed group of people following 'exposure' to a common precipitant."

The hypothesis that those prone to extroversion or neuroticism, or those with low IQ scores, are more likely to be affected in an outbreak of hysterical epidemic has not been consistently supported by research. Bartholomew and Wesseley state that it “seems clear that there is no particular predisposition to mass sociogenic illness and it is a behavioural reaction that anyone can show in the right circumstances.”[2]

Females are affected with mass psychogenic illness at greater rates than males.[1] Adolescents and children are frequently affected in cases of MPI.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

DSM-IV defines conversion disorder as follows:

• One or more symptoms or deficits are present that affect voluntary motor or sensory function suggestive of a neurologic or other general medical condition.
• Psychological factors are judged, in the clinician's belief, to be associated with the symptom or deficit because conflicts or other stressors precede the initiation or exacerbation of the symptom or deficit. A diagnosis where the stressor precedes the onset of symptoms by up to 15 years is not unusual.
• The symptom or deficit is not intentionally produced or feigned (as in factitious disorder or malingering).
• The symptom or deficit, after appropriate investigation, cannot be explained fully by a general medical condition, the direct effects of a substance, or as a culturally sanctioned behavior or experience.
• The symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.
• The symptom or deficit is not limited to pain or sexual dysfunction, does not occur exclusively during the course of somatization disorder, and is not better accounted for by another mental disorder.

Conversion symptoms typically do not conform to known anatomical pathways and physiological mechanisms, but instead follow the individual's conceptualization of a condition. Typically, the less medical knowledge a person has, the more implausible are the presenting symptoms. Persons with more sophisticated medical knowledge tend to have more subtle symptoms and deficits that may closely simulate neurological or other general medical conditions.[9]

An evolutionary psychology explanation for conversion disorder is that the symptom may have been evolutionarily advantageous during warfare. A non-combatant with these symptoms signals non-verbally, possibly to someone speaking a different language, that she or he is not dangerous as a combatant and also may be carrying some form of dangerous infectious disease. This can explain that conversion disorder may develop following a threatening situation, that there may be a group effect with many people simultaneously developing similar symptoms (as in mass psychogenic illness), and the gender difference in prevalence.[19]

The Lacanian model accepts conversion as common phenomenon inherent in specific psychical structure. The higher prevalence of it among women is based on somewhat different intrapsychic relation to the body compared to that of typical males. This allows the formation of conversion symptoms.[20]

en.wikipedia.org...

And of course there is the effects of oxidation and calcification on the brain, not just the heart. The studies that I liked to are discussing the NIEMR from mobile phones, microwaves, computers and the such like, and finding a relationship. Burroughs illness could have been caused by something like dielectric heaters and sealers, the kind used in the manufacturer of armaments. If that is what happened, and they weren't supposed to be manufacturing armaments, that would make that classified information. Just as an example.

One other thing, your comment about scary aliens reminded me, in Warren's book, he reports that when he gets to the woods that their weapons, everyones, were taken from them. I thought, perhaps it was a 'come in peace move', not wanting to scare the scary aliens but probably just as wise if panic could be an issue, particularly if there was some knowledge that the perception of some of the men was impaired, which raises another option, I have not yet been able to rule out some psychotropic drug being involved.

So, including your two, I am running at least 7 or 8 possible scenarios.

I have to say though, not discounting the alien option entirely, but you have to question the intelligence of a species that of all the places on Earth it could explore, even limiting to those with military installations, they choose the arse end of East Anglia to drop in on.

a reply to: Anaana

Penniston's a tough one. I really want to believe that he is lying, but when I watch him talk about it, he is uncomfortable and embarassed at some points, he doesn't seem to trust his own narrative, it's like he knows that it sounds like crap but that's what he's got and what can he do about it. The more recent stuff in particular, he doesn't really want to talk about it at all, but then, my more suspicious side does wonder if he is holding off on a book deal where he rips the whole thing open and makes a huge pile of cash while pointing at his buddies for believing in the UFO story. I don't see it. With multiple people involved there is bound to be some expansion of his narrative, as he takes on board their version of events and finds ways that that relates to his own.

Penniston has only just co-wrote a book so I think it's a little premature to be thinking of writing another one. Although he seems to have abandoned his 'alliance' with John Burroughs these days.

As to whether he's lying or not I will say this. He is an unreliable witness. Things don't add up when you dig into the details of his stories and his binary code download is just plain illogical. At least parts of the other witness stories seem to agree. But Penniston's has expanded and also 'adapted' after he reads things like this thread on the internet. If anything his story has expanded more and more away from John Burroughs story.


Angelia Joiner a respected journalist interviewed Penniston and he was very uncomfortable and struggled throughout the interview.

a reply to: mirageman

I will save that for my tea break tomorrow morning, long day and tired eyes right now, but cheers.

a reply to: Anaana

Hi Anaama

Yes there may be a number of other possibilities but at present I am tending towards something top secret that cannot be released.

The reason the airmen's weapons were taken from them was because of the SOFA. Not the couch at Bentwaters but the Status of Forces Agreement. In peace time United States troops were not allowed to take their weapons off base (other than for transport purposes). As this happened in UK sovereign territory then all weapons should have been removed whilst on the base. Although some stories claim handguns and even M-16 rifles were taken off base by some of the men.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Anaana

Hi Anaama

Yes there may be a number of other possibilities but at present I am tending towards something top secret that cannot be released.

The reason the airmen's weapons were taken from them was because of the SOFA. Not the couch at Bentwaters

but the Status of Forces Agreement. In peace time United States troops were not allowed to take their weapons off base (other than for transport purposes). As this happened in UK sovereign territory then all weapons should have been removed whilst on the base. Although some stories claim handguns and even M-16 rifles were taken off base by some of the men.

Ah hah aha...see this is why it's good to talk...thank you! Yes that makes perfect sense. Not that I'm quite willing to discount the psychotropic aspect, that touches a number of scenarios otherwise, but that had no relation to the reason the weapons were removed. Nice one.

I'm not keen to go the reductionist approach, I don't think that there is a single simple explanation...anyway, I've thought enough for today, I'll get back to the rest of your posts tomorrow. Thanks for sharing though and helping me to fasttrack through some of the information and make sense of the relationship, really helpful.

a reply to: Anaana

You do see that beyond the "alien" possibility, all of your other options fall into the "disgusting human activity" realm I listed as my number two right?

I think this encounter in the forest was in full foreknowledge of the authorities running that base.
In other words it was mutually arranged.
a reply to: Anaana

originally posted by: Anaana

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.

Oke Anaana, it’s no problem, thanks at least for your reaction.

And regarding the saying about “creating of a false landing site”, I have no further knowledge of that but it could have to do with the then already ongoing base gossip so that was misunderstood about what was really going on.

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Anaana

You do see that beyond the "alien" possibility, all of your other options fall into the "disgusting human activity" realm I listed as my number two right?

Put a 'could' in between options and fall and I will happily concede your point, as in "all of your other options could fall into...", but they also may not. Additionally, even with option one, "disgusting human activity" becomes an elemental factor, and that's really my point, as a human I know that from time to time, under certain parameters and conditions, I have on occasion erred, on some occasions I have completely #ed up but I have been fortunate enough not to found mysellf in a position where my # up has caused reckless endangerment to others. I know for a fact that others have been less fortunate. I accept though that accidents, while most often caused by carelessness, do happen. I am not looking at this case for someone or something to blame, I am simply trying to understand what could have happened and from all that I have looked at so far, there is a complexity that is suggestive of a multi-causal correlation of events. The only solid at this point, from my part, is an acceptance that the heart murmur which Burroughs received treatment for, and has been awarded damages for, was due to exposure to NIEMR. Everything else is up the air and open for discussion, but that one constant, accepted as such, gives us a basis from which to frame the situation and establish some boundaries of the various systems and subsystems contributing to the situation as a whole.

originally posted by: spacevisitor
And regarding the saying about “creating of a false landing site”, I have no further knowledge of that but it could have to do with the then already ongoing base gossip so that was misunderstood about what was really going on.

Cheers, spacevisitor. I think that a big part of this is misunderstanding, gossip, inter-unit and -rank rivallry, newly arrived grunts too. Which reminds me, I also noticed a reference by Warren where he says he enjoyed "torturing" Penniston about the aliens on one occasion. This is bugging me. Why would Warren be taking the piss out of Penniston about seeing aliens when he himself claims to have seen aliens? As mirageman suggested a post or so back, Warren may not have even been there at the time of the 'event', and I wonder if this disparity, where he is teasing Penniston, could be due to his mixing in grains of truth. He didn't see aliens, but he did tease Penniston about seeing aliens. Could he be that dumb? To the extent that he wouldn't see that he was contradicting his own version events? Unless it is just covering up his own vulnerability that led to him "torturing" Penniston, which is fairly typical of bullying behaviour.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: spacevisitor
And regarding the saying about “creating of a false landing site”, I have no further knowledge of that but it could have to do with the then already ongoing base gossip so that was misunderstood about what was really going on.

Cheers, spacevisitor. I think that a big part of this is misunderstanding, gossip, inter-unit and -rank rivallry, newly arrived grunts too. Which reminds me, I also noticed a reference by Warren where he says he enjoyed "torturing" Penniston about the aliens on one occasion. This is bugging me. Why would Warren be taking the piss out of Penniston about seeing aliens when he himself claims to have seen aliens? As mirageman suggested a post or so back, Warren may not have even been there at the time of the 'event', and I wonder if this disparity, where he is teasing Penniston, could be due to his mixing in grains of truth. He didn't see aliens, but he did tease Penniston about seeing aliens. Could he be that dumb? To the extent that he wouldn't see that he was contradicting his own version events? Unless it is just covering up his own vulnerability that led to him "torturing" Penniston, which is fairly typical of bullying behaviour.

Hi Anaana, You said;

Which reminds me, I also noticed a reference by Warren where he says he enjoyed "torturing" Penniston about the aliens on one occasion.

I definitely do not believe that Larry Warren has said that so I am very curious to were you have read that.

You said;

This is bugging me. Why would Warren be taking the piss out of Penniston about seeing aliens when he himself claims to have seen aliens?

For as far as I am correct has Penniston never said that he saw Aliens, on the contrary, he firmly believes it to have been human time-travelers from out our own future.
Also Larry Warren has never said or claimed to have seen Aliens, he always revered to them as “creatures” and/or “entities” and/or “beings”.

You said;

As mirageman suggested a post or so back, Warren may not have even been there at the time of the 'event',

I personally firmly believe he was and there is information available that backs that up.

You said;

and I wonder if this disparity, where he is teasing Penniston, could be due to his mixing in grains of truth. He didn't see aliens, but he did tease Penniston about seeing aliens.

Again, they both never used the word Aliens.

You said;

Could he be that dumb?

He definitely isn’t dumb and I really wonder why you say this.

You said;

To the extent that he wouldn't see that he was contradicting his own version events?

Can you show me the information that shows that he was contradicting his own version events?

Unless it is just covering up his own vulnerability that led to him "torturing" Penniston, which is fairly typical of bullying behaviour.

I get the very strong impression that you do your upmost best here to ridicule Larry Warren as good as possible so can you tell me for why that is?

a reply to: Anaana

Hello Anaana just to back both you and our friend Spacevisitor on some points before I watch the footy tonight.

Larry Warren has documentation to prove his deployment to Bentwaters in early December 1980. Although Colonel Halt tried to play this down for years and make out he couldn't have been on duty as no one saw him Adrian Bustinza has backed up that "Larry was there". Spacevisitor will tell you more about that if you need to know.

Colonel Halt did finally concede that Larry Warren might have been on the fringes of the incident in 2010 on a show called "Behind the Paranormal" which is possibly the only time the two men have confronted each other on live media.

As for Warren "torturing" Penniston. There is reference to it in Left at East Gate but Warren is using a figure of speech and not talking about literally "torturing" Penniston. Nor does Larry Warren use the term aliens.

"Thompson asked Penniston if he'd seen any UFOs recently....Penniston went right through the roof. He'd been the one who'd told me to shut up the morning after the incident. I took great pleasure in torturing him.

Source Left at East Gate : www.tinyurl.com...

Good luck with the remaining depths of this case that you are yet to discover.

Hi mirageman, thanks for your reply and enjoy the footy.

a reply to: Springer

I agree. It's like Cash-Landrum all over again.

I also think that any servicemen and women should be afforded reasonable financial aid according to length of service. Burroughs' length of service should have been enough to justify helping him out on medical costs.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I believe John Burroughs was injured by whatever it was that was out in Rendelsham that night, I also believe it was of human manufacture right here on Earth.

Considering the preponderance of evidence points to narrow RF bandwidths and Non Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation being at the root of his injury, and the fact there were experimental "systems" being tested in that year and a couple years before and after (please don't ask me how I KNOW that, but I do) I am confident the VA reached a just decision in awarding Mr. Burroughs his disability payments. It should have been done long ago...

I am not convinced the "rays" came form anything more "off world" than the national laboratories of the powers of the West.

Therefore, I also must think the entirety of the "UFOs did it" narrative for Rendelsham was the same (if not the identical strategy) as that which was going on concomitantly in the Nevada Desert right around the same time with the same branch of the U.S. Military.

Naturally I could be 100% wrong in this, as I was not there and I have no personal frame of reference by which to compare the experience(s).