The Rendlesham Forest UFO - What really Happened?

reply to post by Rising Against


Nohe wasnt , burroughs, who was with him , swears he did not even See an object, when only a fewpaces behind, Also the notebook descriptions were not written during the event like he claimed they were....

"Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.”

[edit on 16-8-2010 by gambon]

news.bbc.co.uk...

related link to the meetup in the woods


[edit on 16-8-2010 by gambon]

I applaud the incredible and exhaustive effort, but seriously, just write a book and earn some dollars for your passion and labor. Work like this is is poorly given to anonymity.

i would like to say this evidence in a court
mulipule witnesses
base comander
tape
castings of landing gear
statements
would constitute proof of a lander craft

ours or theirs is the question

ufos over the white house google it so many people saw it
does that constitute proof?
roswell?

there is proof of a cover up is that in itself proof?

do we require an official saying yep it happened?

if i saw a ufo it would be proof to me buy would you beleive me?
what if i had audio and plaster casts?

XPLodER

I have a very close friend who is about to reitre from the Air force, he has been a Chief for about 5 years now. He was stationed there approximatly 2 years after it happened. He claims word on the base is that it is all true. He said it wasnt talked about openly, mainly whispered conversations away from others. As a high ranking career military man, he is not prone to bs'ing, and was 100 % serious when talking to me about it. fwiw. Great post btw, nice to see something of this quality again.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Yes superior thread.

The supposed photos that were taken of the object are still no where to be found correct? Classified?

If these photos exist, and are being withheld, we have evidence of something EXTREMELY fishy going on.

I find the lighthouse explanation for this much hassle to be a huge joke. It's an absurd explanation.

Of course they would bring a lighthouse explanation. They mistaken the people as "Dumb Animals", and expect us to follow and agree to their explanations. But you know what I find highly disturbing is that "Why are the people not putting enough pressure on the Govt." Catch them in a lie, but don't do anything about it? But the good thing is, they are releasing their documents and we possibly know more than ever about these incidents than before. I'll have to save this and read up to see if there's anything new that I haven't learned about the Rendlesham Forest UFO.

However, this problem strongly lies on the US, since its one of their agents that are there at the site of a major UFO sighting involving a Pilot. Then, more than likely, the people in the NSA come up with a different, more ridiculous story that "Unknown, Advanced/Intelligent, hostile, weather balloons are a threat to National Security", and yet the majority just goes on to live with that like its not a problem? Exactly how the hell does that happen when they are caught in obvious lies of a cover-up? There should be enough red flags going up that it would color all of the United States RED, and be seen from the moon. This, "Lack of Interest" by the majority is only aiding the government that is keeping the lid on this, whether the majority disagrees on it or not.

But I am proud of the few that keep the fight for disclosure alive.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by QuantumDeath]

What a fantsatic thread!! S&F

THANK YOU for your hardwork and time.

I believe it to of happened. It is very hard to fool people under hypnosis.

reply to post by Rising Against


Thanks for all the work, and you are right, it is one of the best cases for things that we do not understand but should keep up on. S+F

This is one of the only UFO cases that I personally take at face value. I seriously doubt so many military officials were having mass hallucinations. These guys are trained observers and I also feel as if they would have known if whatever was happening, was some type of drill.

I think what Mr Halt et al says is pretty much the truth.

OH FFS...

There was NO UFO here - it was a bunch of pissed USA Airmen who accidentally witnessed what to them was a UFO.

What We ALL kno wknow as a stealth fighter.

Close this # down.

Concentrate on more important thing.

Like the death of the Uk Scientist Jupp - USA defence personell who were there are pointing the finger at UK Scientists, but who had more to gain?

AMERICANS, that who.

The death of a brilliant young scientist is being made into the usual media curcus with unnamed american defence personell DODGING THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THEIR SO CALLED MAJOR ALLIE by refusing to give testimony.

Does that sound like a Nation that holds the Uk as it's HIGHEST Allie?

No. It's BOLLOX. Yet ANOTHER example of American duplicity.

These BASTARDS should be warrent issued so that the next time the land in the UK or ANY part of Europe, their #TY AMERICAN asses are arrested and dragged back to England.

Also, don't forget that people here in the UK have NOT forgotten about Dr Clarke.

We ALL know that it was the CIA who MURDERED this ineffecrtal but loyal civil servant.

He has the TRUTH about the BOLLOX intel that was going to send the UK to war in the middle east.

He tried to out the data but WAS MURDERED BY CIA OPERATIVES IN THE UK.

THE USA IS GUILTY OF MURDERING A SIMPLE CIVIL SERVANT WHO HAD NO EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING OF BEING THRUST INTO THE LIMELIGHT AS HE WAS.

IT IS TIME TO CUT THE SHACKLES OF THIS SO CALLED "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" WHEREBY ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UK ARE SUBJECT TO USA UNDERCOVER LAWS (and successive UK Govts, regardles of political flavour turn a blind eye)

# OFF AMERICA - WE DON'T WANT YOU ANYMORE.

reply to post by crichton13


I love disinformation.

I always thought that the lighthouse excuse was terribly feeble. As if those folks stationed there hadn't seen that lighthouse countless times. And were suddenly flummoxed by it, and assumed it was an unknown light. I know when I served, if I had a patrol, I knew the regular lights, sounds, and schedule of wherever I assigned. Even when I was 18, I would not have been so dense as to mistake a lighthouse I had probably seen countless times as a new unknown light.

And people suggested that MANY soldiers.. and many of higher rank.. were ALL fooled by the lighthouse they were ALL familiar with.

I'm thinking not...

reply to post by Rising Against


since when is the military a high source of credibility. where have you been the last thousand years. the have whole divisions set up for deception, psychological warfare and propaganda. the truth is a journey not a bus stop.



[edit on 16-8-2010 by randomname]

Excellent thread Rising Against, star and flag for your hard work.

If I may, I would like to ask your opinion of an event which is not commonly associated with Rendlesham but which I believe is of huge significance and goes a long way towards showing that powerful people in the US military were very concerned by the reported events and that the events themselves were not the work of pranksters; the event I am referring to is the Cash-Landrum Incident on the evening of December 29, 1980.

It is my opinion that the Cash-Landrum Incident represented the test flight of a highly secret (and evidently dangerous) experimental black ops project and that the highly unusual step of flying such a craft over the continental US was prompted by concern to the extent of panic caused by the events of the previous nights in England; I must stress again that the timing of these two events is of utmost importance, for when two cases backed by such strong evidence happen within the same time-frame I think we have to give serious consideration as to whether there is a connection.

What may I ask is your take on this, if indeed you have one?

reply to post by crichton13


Somebody needs tea, crumpets and a hug.

This THREAD Is AWESOME!!!

Can I ask if you took any time at all looking over this vast bit of data?

I assure you that if you put together a New Thread with just 10% as much information that has been provided in the OP regarding to the "Death of the Uk Scientist Jupp" and/or Dr Clarke. you would be well on your way to some very intelligent and respectful dialog.


reply to post by Rising Against


Thank You For Sharing Your Wonderful Research - FLAG & STAR

Warmest Regards,

t

EDIT: for typo

[edit on 8/16/2010 by EyeHeartBigfoot]

WW!!!! GREAT WORK!!!!! Will read ALL of it 2morow! Just thumbed through it, VERY well put together from what I saw!!

S&F

This case is overwhelming in evidence. It is a solid case and the lighthouse excuse is a ridiculous cop out and insulting to anyone's intelligence. Lighthouses do not create holograms for one. Definitely UFO's the only mystery is who was piloting them? If they were not drones that is. They seemed too small to be piloted by a normal sized man, maybe too small for a child as well. I have a feeling they were drones and there are several cases of these craft casing nuclear weapons facilitys in some cases rendering the warheads useless with some kind of laser.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 16-8-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

This is also the case that made me a believer in the subject.

Ive said it before and i'll say it again - If there were a smoking gun UFO case, this would be the one.

It is hands down my favorite case.

reply to post by sonicology


You beat me to it sonicology!

Rendlesham = Cash-Landrum

The incidents are the result of the testing and deployment of systems that make use of unconventional fuel and power sources with potentially dangerous side effects. We can add the 1971 Delphos incident to the list as well in terms of toxicity.

There are exotic nuclear and chemical based systems in use and sometimes they just go wrong. A group of objects could be encased in a (insert shape of choice here) special matrix so that the structure of the object is its fuel. Think of the way a solid fueled rocket motor burns from the inside out. Then as the fuel is expended (sparking, coronal discharge), the internal objects detach and go their own way. Unfortunately if the objects also give off ionizing radiation, it's really bad for living tissue.

If one of these things lands in the wrong neighbor's backyard, it's best to put some "alien" writing on the outside, not "Made in XXX."

To the OP, great job!

DE

Originally posted by gambon
However concerning the notebook and the familiarity of the witnesses to the area ....

" Burroughs and Cabansag confirm that they chased the lighthouse for about two miles before realizing what it was. Evidently they were not as familiar with the lighthouse as proponents of this case like to claim – see also Point 8 below. In an interview on The Paracast in 2009 Burroughs stated he had never been out in the woods before that night. Penniston and Cabansag were newly arrived on base and were no more familiar with the woods than he was (scroll to 08:40, 25:35 and 33:15 in the Paracast interview).
4. In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes (see picture below). However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.” So what are we to make of Penniston’s claims? ""

source..www.ianridpath.com...

The lighthouse was part of it, for sure, I'm not sure it explains all of it. there's also Lt. Col. Halt's recording which seems to verify he was looking at the lighthouse based on the 5 second intervals of the lighthouse:




The beeps in that recording are 5 seconds apart, and that's the frequency he sees the light at, so it sure seems like it's the lighthouse he's looking at.

And when Lt. Col Halt was confronted about that, he said he was stopping and starting the recording. I'm sure he did stop and start the recording at times, but I don't hear any starts and stops in that interval, and if it happened to coincide with a 5 second interval it's pretty coincidental. The people who claim that's not the lighthouse in Halt's recording are in denial I think, it may fall short of absolute proof but it's pretty persuasive.

I fell for Penniston's notebook for years and thought that was pretty good evidence. It wasn't until years later that I did more research and found out what you stated in your reply above, about Penniston apparently making up the notebook years later, and Burroughs and Penniston who were together don't tell the same story at all. So anyone who says they believe this case, which version? Not even the witnesses agree on what happened. Burroughs and Penniston's accounts are completely different.

That's an impressive amount of research done in the OP but having done all that research I would have thought you'd run across the discrepancy in the Penniston and Burroughs accounts and acknowledge at least one of them must be lying, my guess is Penniston because I can't find any evidence in earlier years where he claimed to have that notebook.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by crichton13

OH FFS...

There was NO UFO here - it was a bunch of pissed USA Airmen who accidentally witnessed what to them was a UFO.

What We ALL kno wknow as a stealth fighter.

Close this # down.

If you don't like the thread then fair enough

But err..Can you at least show some respect and stay on topic.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Rising Against]