"US DoD have confirmed the UFO phenomenon is real"

a reply to: mirageman

I think it is amazing he won. Very cool. I hope it does open the door to some conversations that go beyond the standard: on your mark, get set, deny!

What an amazing time it will be when someone, or something, reveals something undeniable. I hope I live to see it.

What I find strange is the fact that Adrian does not really describe a ‘craft’ like he did a few years after the incident. Is it his memory, or does he have other reasons?

Less than 4 years after the incident, in 1984, Adrian was interviewed twice and in both cases he gave a detailed description of a craft:

Interview with Ray Boeche:

“We did see the object again. It was hovering low, like moving up-and-down anywhere from 10-to-20 feet -- back up, back down, back up. There was a red light on top and there were several blue lights on the bottom. But there was also an effect maybe like a prism … with rainbow lights on top, scattered about .. [and] several other colors of light. It was weird … It was a tremendous size. It even surprised me that it was able to fit into the clearing. A tremendous size -- and I use the word 'tremendous' carefully. It was a round, circular shape. I hate to say like a "plate", but it was thicker at the center than it was at the edge.”

Interview with Larry Fawcett:

LF – Adrian, describe what the machine looked like.
AB – That I won’t forget. It was the first time I’ve seen one like it. It was circular shaped it looked like a pancake. It was thick in the middle, and it would narrow out toward the edges. I’d seen lights, all kind of lights. It would have been a beautiful sight, you know. The lights were so bright that I could only see certain parts of the craft, and there were a bunch of little gadgets on it, too, like some planes got, and other little gadgets that I never even seen on aircraft before.
LF – Was it made of metal?
AB – I would assume.
LF – OK. About how close did you get to this thing?
AB – I’d say I was about, within six to ten feet of it.
LF – And how big was it?
AB – It wasn’t a humongous thing, but it was of a very good size.
LF – Compare it with the size of, say, a Chevy or a Dodge or something like that. Make a comparison with something in size–a truck, tractor trailer in length.
AB – About as wide as an A-10. From what I could see in the beginning, it was very big, but I couldn’t really tell exactly how big as big as a medium-sized house, I would say.
LF – And larger than maybe twelve feet?
AB – Yes, in height, definitely yes.
LF – And how big are the A-10s in length?
AB – About forty feet.
LF – Did you hear any sounds when you were up near it?
AB – The only sound that I heard was like a rumble, like when you hear a jet pass over. But I don’t know whether it was the choppers or it was the sound coming out of the machine down there.
LF – You didn’t see any engines on this machine, right?
AB – No, I didn’t.

LF – When it moved, when it took off, did you hear anything or feel anything?
AB – When it took off, it was, like, hovering. It went up and, like, took off at about a forty-five-degree angle, and if you would have blinked, you would have missed it.
LF – That fast?
AB – That fast. And we got a cold draft of air that lasted about a good ten seconds. You know, like when you get a good blow of dust or wind. No noise though; I do remember that.
LF – OK. When it took off, were you able to see the bottom of it?
AB – No, I can’t say I did.

LF – Did the colors change at all?
AB – The colors were constantly changing while I was there. I remember, it was different colors, and they just, like, go on and off or go to a lower shade.
LF – When the machine was down on the ground, what color was the body of the machine?
AB – I’d say like a blackish greyish.
LF – But it was metal, you’re sure of that?
AB – I’m pretty sure, it had to be metal, yeah.

LF – Black or greyish. And did the machine glow at all when it took off? Did the lights change?
AB – The lights, yes. That’s what it did. It turned, like, into a ball of light.
LF – The whole machine?
AB – The whole machine. And it was like a glow around it, and it just took off.

For her book “You can’t tell the people”, Georgina Bruni asked him the question directly (emphasis mine):

GB: Can you specify if it was a craft out there, or was it just lights you saw?
AB: There was a landed craft. There was a yellowish haze on the ground; it came up to about knee level, like a low fog, it was very yellow. Everything was so weird, animals were acting strange and nobody had a sense of direction. People had camera equipment, not the normal equipment, and there was a lot of it.

GB: Was Halt out there when it landed?

AB: Let me think. Yeah, when this thing landed, Colonel Halt was already there. You see, I didn’t see it land; it had already landed. I saw it take off; it kind of hovered at first, and then took off. When I arrived it was going in and out through the trees, and at one stage it was hovering. Then it went over to a clearing at the edge of the forest. By the time we got to the clearing it had already landed.

Two things about Rendlesham I find interesting;

1: When Burroughs tries to get his records
he's REPEATEDLY told he was NEVER In the Air Force.
Stanton Friedman says it's impossible to hide such records
and is obviously quite wrong. Lazars' records would be cake
to withhold compared to Burroughs. When Burroughs gets a
competent lawyer he's magically found in the system again.
"Oh of course that Burroughs!"
2: Burroughs doesn't say Pennison is lying, he says
he didn't see what Pennison claims to have encountered
but admits he wasn't there and that he (Burroughs) is missing
time during this part of the investigation. Big difference.
This is a departure from the way the average UFO buff
looks at this case. I'm not saying Pennison is being truthful
about binary codes and probes from the future but what happened
is twisted by what mirageman rightfully calls the Soap Opera.

The craft/light had ‘snowy’ structure according to Adrian, he compared it with a snowy TV picture.

This reminded me of a drawing Larry once made of the craft. It has that same snowy structure:

>>> Drawing Larry
>>> Snowy TV

@UnderKingsPeak
In 1968, for the hearings before the committee on science and astronautics in the U.S. House of Representatives, that same Stanton Friedman already wrote:

A particularly interesting aspect of the data from all over the world is that electromagnetic effects are frequently observed in association with the presence of UFOs, along with the fact that many observations suggest that what is being observed is a "vehicle" having a plasma region adjacent toil (…) plasma because of bright glows rather than color, changes in the color of the glow associated with changes in velocity, luminous boundary layers

a reply to: Guest101

For those who want to listen in full to the interview the link (as of today) is still valid : www.youtube.com....

I found this a very interesting interview in that Adrian did appear to be a little confused and his memory hazy at times. Even John and Larry stated they have no strong recall of how they returned to base that night. It was also interesting to hear John mention how Colonel Halt did not seem that surprised that he (John) had returned to the forest whilst he was 'off duty' that night.

Also good to hear another witness who was back at the East Gate Sgt Smith join in with some information as well.

Although the relationship with Penniston seems to have gone sour, John Burroughs seems to have made progress in getting more witnesses to come forward. So I have to applaud the guy. Especially after all he has been through these past few years.

I hope he and Larry can stay on good terms now as the Penniston project has gone off at a very strange tangent and Colonel Halt cannot get over the bitterness he feels towards the man who outed him all those years ago.

a reply to: Anaana

Thank you for providing this considerable amount of scientific/medical information and citations for further reading. A tremendous service.

a reply to: mirageman

'"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."

Is everyone forgetting the application of mind-altering drugs during 'debriefings'? Combined with the shocks these men experienced from the events they witnessed, why would anyone be surprised if their memories were confused? That appears to be the reason for the 'debriefings' and the drugs. Moreover, Burroughs, Penniston, and Warren have submitted themselves to hypnotic regressions in recent years in order to recollect, if possible, the details of events stored in subconscious memory. That process has no doubt contributed to changes in what they have reported of the events since ~2010. It's also a fact, discussed in an interview of Larry Warren earlier this year by Don Eckers, that Halt obtained tapes of Warrens's regression from the hypnosis sessions (an outrageous breach of ethics by the hypnotist). As has been noted in this thread, Warren has been treated quite badly by the other three, especially Halt, over the entirety of the decades since Dec. 1980. The reason for that is clearly that Halt resented Warren's breaking the story of the events at Rendelsham, placing him in a difficult position he'd tried to avoid. There is also the matter of Warren (and one other airman at Bentwaters/Rendelsham) saying publicly that they saw Gen. Williams at Capel Green, obviously against the policy Halt has followed of protecting his superior officer at all costs. In addition, there can't be any question that Burroughs, Penniston, and Warren's treatment at the hands of their interrogators continued to keep them shaken up for days, and that the whole series of events and the aftermath put them all under continuing pressure -- the result being mutual mistrust and disagreements. Penniston told Warren to 'shut up' about what had happened the morning after because he was following the practice that had been stated to everyone there previously [they certainly all knew it] -- that is, that one keeps one's mouth firmly shut about ufo sightings, even among one's fellow soldiers and certainly relative to the public.

Re your questioning Penniston's having gone home early the morning after his encounter with and scrutiny of the landed craft (apparently very early, before sunrise) to get plaster of paris with which to take molds of the impressions left in the ground by the craft's landing gear, I'd take that as a sign of an intense pressure, even compulsion, he felt to obtain some evidence of what he'd seen. And of course, we see one of those impressions in your post. It exists, and more than likely he produced it. Has anyone else claimed that they produced it?

I think there's way too much second-guessing (and amateur psychoanalysis) being directed at these guys in this thread, but I guess that's obvious.

a reply to: Constance

Is everyone forgetting the application of mind-altering drugs during 'debriefings'?

No, I think many of us suspect that is one of the reasons that this whole story is a complete mess. But Penniston's additions to his stories are the most obvious. If his memories have been chemically altered then his testimony cannot be trusted either. In fact Peter Robbins, in his new book, alludes to the theory that Colonel Halt himself may have been chemically debriefed at some time.

As for the plaster casts it's a minor observation really but yet another one that doesn't quite add up.

According to the many tellings of the story Penniston returned to the forest alone on Boxing Day morning to make plaster casts before the police and USAF Officers turned up around 10:30am. So he must have arrived before 9:50am to start mixing the plaster and waiting for it to dry. Even though other reports detail officers were also out there investigating soon after daylight.

....After the debriefing, Airman Burroughs and I were put on authorized break for six days, so we drove home to Ipswich. I dropped Airman Burroughs off, then went home, changed clothes, and drove back to Woodbridge. But first I stopped by a friend’s place in Ipswich, who was a contractor and painter, who gave me some plaster. Then, I went back out to the forest and the clearing where the three indentations left by the craft we had seen were.

“I poured plaster into the impressions left in the ground by the craft and waited about 40 minutes. Then I pulled them up and put them in the back of my car, just as Maj. Ed Drurry, the Deputy Security Police Commander, and the assistant operations officer showed up. They asked me what I was doing. I told them I was just looking around. They told me they wanted to do the same.

“I didn’t tell them about making the casts, because I didn’t think it would be prudent. Later I found out that the deputy base commander, then-Lieutenant Colonel Halt, had also visited the site later that same day and noticed that there were traces of plaster around the impressions, the indentations, and later, much later, I finally admitted to him what I had done. I needed something for myself, something to prove to me that this had really happened, really physically happened.......


Source : www.therendleshamincident.co.uk...

Penniston's timeline for returning from the forest, receiving a debriefing, going out into the forest again, dropping Burroughs off in Ipswich (around 30 mins away in light traffic), calling his contractor friend, driving back and getting back to the forest partially on foot to make the plaster casts before anyone else noticed is very, very tight' Sun up on Boxing day is around 8:15 in the UK. The shift didn't officially finish until 07:00 and the men were also debriefed for some time after.

But yes the casts do exist although. It is possible another officer made casts as well. But just because they exist doesn't prove when, where or how they were made.

There are photos of the depressions in the ground taken by one of the officers on 26th Dec 1980 :

Clic k here

Not the best quality and it's difficult to draw any real conclusion.

I was going to so I hope that helps clear it up a bit but it probably doesn't.

a reply to: mirageman

As you admit, the issue of the plaster casts is "a minor observation really but yet another one that doesn't quite add up." We have more than enough concerning all of the principals in this case that 'doesn't quite add up', but we also know the reasons why it doesn't add up, which I have added to in the post you are partially responding to. But let that go. Let's try to make sense of how and for what purpose Halt obtained/received Larry Warren's regression tapes from the hypnotherapist, which I mentioned here:

"It's also a fact, discussed in an interview of Larry Warren earlier this year by Don Eckers, that Halt obtained tapes of Warrens's regression from the hypnosis sessions (an outrageous breach of ethics by the hypnotist)."

Does anyone know how these tapes came into Halt's possession? Did he ask for them, or were they given to him for some reason by the hypnotherapist? If Halt asked to listen to them, why? To find further ammunition with which to slander Warren? Or might he have been curious to find out what Warren subconsciously remembered of the event at Capel Green that he himself might not be able to remember?

In either case, the answer to the question should be sought because it is significant in either case. Is Halt still trying to discredit Warren in order to protect someone or something from Warren's recollections, past and potential? And is that really an acceptable ethical motive given the general enforced state of ignorance we all flail about in concerning what is known by the military about ufos and associated manipulations by the military? Or on the other hand is Halt as confused as the others about what happened and looking to Warren's subconscious for additional answers?

a reply to: mirageman

"So far no known evidence in the public domain has ever confirmed, beyond reasonable doubt, that extra-terrestrial beings are controlling spacecraft in and around our atmosphere."

Out of curiosity, does your 'reasonable doubt' also kick in if the semantics are adjusted to the simpler phrase "not ours"? This was the language used in the COMETA Report and I think it's preferable to reference to ETI because it makes no presuppositions concerning the originating location of the objects in question. It simply recognizes that we cannot account for the "unexplained" aerial objects and their evident technology as originating on earth.

Note by contrast the heavily qualifed bureaucratic nature of the utterance you quote: "no *known* evidence" does not exactly claim that "no evidence exists." And "in the public domain" is a red flag, isn't it? Indeed "beyond reasonable doubt" lets everyone off the hook by its very ambiguity.

The Air Force statement in which you see reassurance and security most certainly does not take us all back to square one on the question whether some ufos are real, anomalous, and not ours.

a reply to: Constance

As far as I understand David Jacobs provided Col. Halt with a copy of a tape. Jacobs being left in charge of Budd Hopkins archives. In previous correspondence Larry Warren had given permission to Budd Hopkins to release a copy of his hypnosis tape to Peter Robbins. This was so that they could identify four men that Larry had identified under hypnosis as being present with him during his encounter but who he had not named in his book.

The email basically said :

"...I give you permission to release it [the tape] and use it in any way....."

When Halt requested a copy from Jacobs, he (Jacobs) took the email as permission to grant access to anyone.

Now we can speculate what Halt wanted the tape for and it could well be the same purpose Peter Robbins wanted a copy and also his curiosity of what he could further extract from it. It's been explained on a few podcasts and radio shows but I can't recall exactly which ones without checking. If you really want to know then let me know and I will get back to you.

a reply to: Constance

Yes indeed. Some UFOs are real anomalous objects. The Hessdalen Lights mystery is an example I often use to illustrate the point. Naturally formed plasma is another theory that Andrew Pike explored with his study of Rendlesham. None of these are human created but the studies are incomplete at present.

You may also find "Project Palladium" interesting and how it might explain some UFOs from Foo Fighters to the Belgian UFO flap in the late 80s.

If you are asking if any are extra-terrestrial spacecraft then don't rule it out but I would be killed for revealing who holds that proof and where it is kept.


That last bit was a joke. You do have a sense of humour I hope?

Seriously I don't think we can rule out that one or more UFOs could be extra-terrestrial. However the only documents I have access to are those in the public domain. There is no evidence to conclude that they are ET. As you well know otherwise we would not be debating it. Is there a mass global cover-up encompassing 200+ sovereign nations that has been in place for over 50 years?

Well we don't know. But it's all really speculation and hearsay. Speculation on the anatomy of any such cover-up and the resources required would probably worthy of a very interesting thread as well.

Regards MM

a reply to: mirageman

"I was basing that particular statement on the evidence presented to enable John Burroughs to win this case. Specifically the UK MoD Condign report which suggests that this 'UAP radiation' is a naturally occurring phenomenon under certain atmospheric conditions."

It was not the Condign report's general hypothesis -- i.e., that ufos [redesignated as UAPs] can be accounted for as naturally occurring phenomena -- that finally enabled Burroughs to obtain his medical records. It was the specific statement made in the Condign report identifying Bentwaters 1980 as a site where damaging forms of radiation had likely harmed individuals close to the object arriving in Capel Green that forced the release of Burrough's records and the consequent funding of his surgery by the US Department of Defense. The Condign report's general hypothesis, as many critics of the report as originally released have pointed out, remains a hypothesis without supporting scientific evidence. See for example Isaac Koi's analysis of the Condign report in this forum at www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is why the MoD is being pressured to release the additional 18 Condign documents still being sequestered from publication. The question that should concern us is *why* these documents remain sequestered after all these years.

In the meantime, I think it's naieve to assume that Condign's unsupported hypothesis has accounted for, and should dispel our interest in, the data obtained in 65 years of military interaction with ufos in the air, on land, and in the sea, which support the thesis that some ufos are physically substantial, technologically superior, machines, intelligently -- and intentionally -- operating in our atmosphere and in space, and that they are 'not ours'.

a reply to: Constance

It was not the Condign report's general hypothesis -- i.e., that ufos [redesignated as UAPs] can be accounted for as naturally occurring phenomena -- that finally enabled Burroughs to obtain his medical records. It was the specific statement made in the Condign report identifying Bentwaters 1980 as a site where damaging forms of radiation had likely harmed individuals close to the object arriving in Capel Green that forced the release of Burrough's records and the consequent funding of his surgery by the US Department of Defense.

The specific phrase that references Rendlesham in Condign is

"The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP [Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon] radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods."

I think that whole phrase is open to interpretation. You have, logically, interpreted it as meaning radiation coming from an object at Capel Green. But it doesn't actually refer to an object or Capel Green. It only refers to radiation and Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

In the meantime, I think it's naive to assume that Condign's unsupported hypothesis has accounted for, and should dispel our interest in, the data obtained in 65 years of military interaction with ufos in the air, on land, and in the sea, which support the thesis that some ufos are physically substantial, technologically superior, machines, intelligently -- and intentionally -- operating in our atmosphere and in space, and that they are 'not ours'.

Yes Condign is merely one study and some ufos may well turn out not to be ours. Is Rendlesham one of these cases though?

a reply to: mirageman

"I think that whole phrase is open to interpretation. You have, logically, interpreted it as meaning radiation coming from an object at Capel Green. But it doesn't actually refer to an object or Capel Green. It only refers to radiation and Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon."

Right. But why would we expect it to refer to an object given the thesis -- the scientifically unsupported thesis -- that the author of Condign presents? The parts of Condign previously released to the public through FOIA provide no scientific analysis of the events described and recorded at Rendelsham/Bentwaters 1980. Nor does it present analyses of other ufo events that would justify the claim that ufos can be accounted for as natural 'plasmas' or humanly produced and directed EM devices.

Isaac Koi provided a critical analysis of the Condign Report in a thread published here in 2008, concluding with the statement that "the theory advanced in the Condign Report is certainly not the final nail in ufology’s coffin. It is a rather old and rusty nail...” Koi's analysis reviews earlier detailed evaluations of the plasma theory in ufo research history and coincides with critiques of Condign published by many other researchers and scientists. It's available to read at this link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The question, again, is what's in the 18 Condign documents still being suppressed? And why they are being suppressed?

a reply to: Constance

Thanks for that link, Constance, an excellent review by Isaak Koi!

I do not think the Condign report brings us any closer to a solution.
The Condign report simply rehashes an old theory put forward by debunker Phil Klass.
This plasma theory was already discussed and rejected by relevant scientists on a special symposium organised back in the 60’s.

The only statement in Condign referring to Rendlesham is very peculiar:

The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods. There may be other cases which remain unreported. It is clear that the recipients of these effects are not aware that their behaviour/perception of what they are observing is being modified

I do not consider Rendlesham to be ‘well-reported’ at all. The only report the MOD received was the Halt memo, so how can this be a ‘well-reported’ case’? The Halt memo does not give any information about the duration of the UAP encounters nor does it say anything about the distance between the UAP and the witnesses.

And yet the author of Condign concludes that ‘several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods’ which caused ‘modified behaviour/perception’. According to his official witness statement, however, Penniston never came closer than 50 meters and his encounter was very brief.

So one of these conclusions must be true:
- Either the RFI is as ‘well-reported’ as the Condign author claims, but that means it is much better reported and the witnesses had a much longer encounter at a closer range than we are made to believe,
- Or the Condign author is very eager to make the reader believe that the perception of the witnesses was ‘being modified’, even when there is no solid case for that.

Both of these conclusions are rather peculiar, don't you think?

a reply to: Guest101

"So one of these conclusions must be true:
- Either the RFI is as ‘well-reported’ as the Condign author claims, but that means it is much better reported and the witnesses had a much longer encounter at a closer range than we are made to believe,
- Or the Condign author is very eager to make the reader believe that the perception of the witnesses was ‘being modified’, even when there is no solid case for that.

Both of these conclusions are rather peculiar, don't you think?"

Yes, I do, but I think both indicate the truth we are interested in uncovering. As you indicate, the single Condign statement re the RFI --

"several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods’ which caused ‘modified behaviour/perception’"

-- more than suggests that a great deal of what happened during those three nights was investigated to some extent at the time by government/military/security agencies in the UK, but that their discoveries were never disclosed to the public. I've never believed that the MoD received nothing more than Halt's original memo sent to MoD a month after the events. I think the higher military and government agencies were aware of events at Rendelsham from nearly the beginning as a result of the radar report sent to the base from the London radar tower indicating a large unidentified hovering over the base. By the time of the events at Capel Green on the third night, a group of observers (some in uniforms and some plain-clothed) numbering around 30 individuals according to Bustinza and Warren had assembled on the Green before they themselves got there. B and W also remember seeing some observers equipped with cameras of different sorts, a memory laid down before the pyrotechnics of the apparent landing and before the subsequent debriefings. It seems likely to me that these people would have been representatives of several security agencies (UK and also likely US) on the scene to record events. Otherwise, who were they and why were they there?

At the same time, they could not have learned much about the preceding two nights' events, could not have measured the effects of the craft that Penniston approached closely and even touched on the first night. Thus the single Condign statement about the RFI rushes to a vague, unsupported, conclusion regarding 'higher than normal' amounts of radiation present and affecting individuals close to these 'UAP' and then goes so far as to assert, without evidence, that this radiation distorted the witnesses' perceptions and made their testimony unreliable. All of that, given the available portion of the Condign report, is speculation. And motivates the pressure on the UK's PTB to release the additional 18 documents.

We know that mind-altering drugs were used on the witnesses in the 'debriefings' that followed, with the obvious intent of confusing their memories of what had happened and rendering their testimony confused and therefore unreliable. How much of their disorientation is the result of those debriefings and how much can be demonstrated to be the result of close contact with the apparently landed phenomena at two locations?

It seems to me that Bentwaters-Rendelsham 1980 was indeed Britain's Roswell, and that the UK's security agencies had learned from the coverup of the Roswell events how to bury evidence of it and further devised a way to discredit the witnesses to it with a smokescreen of vague and unsupported suggestions that plasmas can radically distort the perceptions and minds of individuals coming into close proximity to them -- not only during the period of time of close contact with these plasmas but for decades afterward. I think Condign is essentially a coverup and that it was motivated by the continuing interest in the Rendelsham events. I also think most of the witnesses' confusion following the events was caused by whatever drugs and other devices were employed in the 'debriefings' of the witnesses.

a reply to: Constance

I had seen Isaac's post previously and I certainly respect his view. As, believe it or not, I do yours.

I am intrigued by Condign as it was commissioned by the MoD before Britain had a Freedom of Information Act and was never intended for public consumption. If the MoD knew anything about UFOs in secret then why bother commissioning a study at all?

I thought it was originally only a study of files from 1987 onwards (into the mid 90s at the time) which means Rendlesham was not included even though it is the only case referenced.

It is somewhat confusing though as this document summarizing Condign states

Mr. X (the contractor assigned to carrying out the study) single-handedly input basic data from various time periods covering approximately 25 years into a Microsoft Access computer database. One of these periods spanned 10 years from 1987 to 1997. This span, along with two clusters from 1988 and 1996, were then statistically analyzed, along with the subsequent writing of the substantial 465 page report, all in just over three years...........

Source : Condign Summary

The still to be released files are :

DAIRDEF/111/6/4 C31 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DAIRDEF/111/6/4 C3I AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DAIRDEF/111/6/4 CSI AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL LOW FLYING UFOS
D/DDOPS(GE)/10/8 ADMIN + GENERAL UFOS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORT
D/DAO1/13 ADGE UFO REPORTS
D/IPR2X/2/4/1 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (FOI) COPYRIGHT ISSUES CONCERNING INTERNET PUBLICATION REPORTS OF UFO SIGHTINGS
2GP(BP)/88772/10/ISTAR UFO Reports
M9/18 Defence Policy Issues UFOs
D/DS8/75/2/1 UFO Reports Correspondence
D/DI55/108/15 UFO Policy 1971-96
D/DI55/108/15 UFO Policy 1996-2000
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy June-Dec 2000
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy Dec 2000-March 2004
D/DI55/108/15 UAP Policy March 2004

Source : www.gov.uk...

Quite a number!

Perhaps they were missing due to admin errors or were retained for reasons of national and international security? Anything that would identify private citizens and any private contractors also have to be removed before being released under the terms of FOI. Although I know of at least one MoD file that was released and failed to conceal the identity of a private citizen.

I really don't know what's in these files nor why the delay (other than the reasons given above). We will have to see when they are released.

a reply to: Constance

"several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods’ which caused ‘modified behaviour/perception’"

-- more than suggests that a great deal of what happened during those three nights was investigated to some extent at the time by government/military/security agencies in the UK, but that their discoveries were never disclosed to the public.

We don't know what we don't know. Does it suggest the UK conducted active investigations? No FOI documents have revealed anything at all. Or is it merely the Mr.X contracted to conduct the study 'putting his oar in' having heard about the case previously?

I think the higher military and government agencies were aware of events at Rendelsham [sic] from nearly the beginning as a result of the radar report sent to the base from the London radar tower indicating a large unidentified hovering over the base

Please note it's spelled RENDLESHAM.

If that was the case then it has never leaked out.

By the time of the events at Capel Green on the third night, a group of observers (some in uniforms and some plain-clothed) numbering around 30 individuals according to Bustinza and Warren had assembled on the Green before they themselves got there. B and W also remember seeing some observers equipped with cameras of different sorts, a memory laid down before the pyrotechnics of the apparent landing and before the subsequent debriefings. It seems likely to me that these people would have been representatives of several security agencies (UK and also likely US) on the scene to record events. Otherwise, who were they and why were they there?

Very good questions. Technically USAF troops should not have been off base on UK sovereign territory (except where they have permission or in times of an emergency). The first night can be explained as a "possible downed aircraft" , but the second and third nights are stretching it. Were the Americans acting alone? Or were the Brits fully aware of these off-base excursions?

At the same time, they could not have learned much about the preceding two nights' events, could not have measured the effects of the craft that Penniston approached closely and even touched on the first night.

The problem is that Penniston said he never got closer than within 50m of what he perceived to be a craft initially. It was not until the 2000s that he claimed to have touched a craft.

We know that mind-altering drugs were used on the witnesses in the 'debriefings' that followed, with the obvious intent of confusing their memories of what had happened and rendering their testimony confused and therefore unreliable.

Burroughs has no recollection of any such debriefing, Colonel Halt claims he was unaware at the time that his men were debriefed in such a way. Penniston believes he consented to them voluntarily. Larry Warren has blurred memories of being taken to an underground base. So we don't know for sure. But yes two of the witnesses are stating they were 'drugged' and the Deputy Base Commander believes (or asserts) this was the case.

It seems to me that Bentwaters-Rendelsham 1980 was indeed Britain's Roswell, and that the UK's security agencies had learned from the coverup of the Roswell events how to bury evidence of it and further devised a way to discredit the witnesses to it with a smokescreen of vague and unsupported suggestions that plasmas can radically distort the perceptions and minds of individuals coming into close proximity to them

I am not convinced at all that in 1980 the UK security services would know anything about Roswell. At this time Jesse Marcel had just gone public. But the stories of alien bodies, crashed saucers and the rest of that whole mythology was yet to develop. There is even a memo from Churchill wanting to know what Flying Saucers were all about and Roswell does not even get a mention in any of the documents released from the 1940s and 1950s. Even though it is obvious that there was a cover-up of sorts going on. Roswell just doesn't feature at all until the 1980s.

I think Condign is essentially a coverup and that it was motivated by the continuing interest in the Rendelsham events.

The problem with that theory is that the UK Freedom of Information Act was not even proposed until 1997 when the Labour (Blair) Government came to power. Condign was never intended for public consumption and was commissioned by the MoD to study previous case files and glean more information.

So why was the study commissioned if the MoD already knew about UFOs and aliens? Unless you are suggesting they could see into the future?

The 'conspiracy' angle is always the easiest one to resort to in cases like this. But we also have to face the inconvenient facts if we are trying to resolve what happened.

a reply to: mirageman

"a reply to: Constance

I had seen Isaac's post previously and I certainly respect his view. As, believe it or not, I do yours."

Of course I believe you respect my viewpoint on Rendelsham. It has quite a lot to recommend it, better expressed by others than myself.


"I am intrigued by Condign as it was commissioned by the MoD before Britain had a Freedom of Information Act and was never intended for public consumption. If the MoD knew anything about UFOs in secret then why bother commissioning a study at all?"

I think that Condign was in part -- the part originally released -- intended for public consumption. Re whether the MoD (and related UK and US agencies) "knew anything about UFOs in secret," I can't believe you can doubt that. But if in fact whatever agency sponsored the Condign report 'knew nothing about ufos' and the history of investigations of ufos in the US and other countries, whyever did the Condign effort not read, address, and add to those investigations of ufos and deal in particular with the critiques of the plasma interpretation of ufos registered by scientists in the past? Instead the anonymous author of the Condign report seems to have begun with a predetermined interpretation of what ufos are without a detailed examination of the accumulated ufo data and the critical discussion of it that took place along the way, including the rejection of the plasma interpretation by scientists on various occasions, singly and as a group during the period of the Condon 'investigation'.

As I read what you write here, you yourself seem inordinately willing to accept at face value whatever the PTB in your country tell you.