Oh no, not another Rendlesham Thread.

Judging by the low number of views this has on YouTube and I can;t find anything via search, posted on this forum, I thought I'd add this to the database for people's perusal. What makes this a unique video is the depth this one goes into. To the best of my knowledge, this is the most accurate portrayal of the events over that Xmas in 1980 in the Rendlesham Forest. That the lecture is delivered by a serving police officer does lend it a tad more weight than many previous efforts.

It's quite long at 1 and 3/4 hours however, if you do have a true interest in this sighting it's well worth the effort. I'd add this. Gary Heseltine, the Detective giving the lecture, makes no bones he'd like to make a major film about the incident and that he hopes to be involved with the project. On the other hand he also makes it plain that there's no guarantee that he will be included. Personally, I have no problem with that at all, given the huge amount of hours the guy has put into this investigation then I see no reason why, if its' made into a film he shouldn't be on board and to be honest, I hope the guy is and it's as close as can managed to what "actually happened"

For those confused by all the claims and counter claims over the incidents then this is really a very good place to consolidate what is actually known as opposed to the huge amount of noise that has been generated on all sides. What it does illustrate though is this, just how shabby the so called investigations by certain parties have been and just how fast and loose they have played with the evidence to support their own hypotheses to suit their own agendas.

Anyway, a lecture truly worth watching and yes Gazza can be a tad florid in his prose and yes, he does play up for the camera a tad. That's by the by, it's a darn good lecture and it's a refreshing change to hear from someone who has quite obviously expended a real effort to pull the whole story together..

Thank you for this. Definitely going to watch this. This is one of the most fascinating cases out there.

Thanks again. S&F.

reply to post by FireMoon


The last I heard about this case, the story had changed so much it was almost unrecognizable. I've saved the video for watching later. I'd love to see the thing sorted out; I hope this is the video that does it. Thanks a lot....

What I like about your take on Rendlesham me ol' brilliant mate, is your knowledge of the history and odd-goings on in that area. It always gets my mind spinning and pumping when you speak of it in those terms.

Excellent presentation. The key concept that naysayers should heed is his explanation of what constitutes "evidence." And in this case, like so many others, it's CORROBORATED evidence by so many at high levels. He goes into the impact of that, too.

Ultimately, chalk it up again to proof of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Let me guess. The naysayers are too lazy to watch the video.

Originally posted by FireMoon
For those confused by all the claims and counter claims over the incidents then this is really a very good place to consolidate what is actually known as opposed to the huge amount of noise that has been generated on all sides. What it does illustrate though is this, just how shabby the so called investigations by certain parties have been and just how fast and loose they have played with the evidence to support their own hypotheses to suit their own agendas.

He's playing with the evidence more than anybody I've seen.

Here are excerpts of the actual eyewitness statements of Burroughs and Cabansag (the full statements are available at the link):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Burroughs:

As we went down the east-gate road and the road that leads into the forest, the lights were moving back and they appeared to stop in a bunch of trees. We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that let into where the lights were coming from, and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman screaming. Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises, and there was a lot of movement in the woods.

All three of us hit the ground and what ever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field. We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field.

You could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse.

So they followed the lights and ended up seeing the lighthouse.

Cabansag:

We figured the lights were coming from past the forrest, since nothing was visible when we past through the woody forrest. We would see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found It to be a lit up farm house. After we had passed throught the forrest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past out the vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was X only a beacon light off In the distance.

Here he calls the lighthouse beacon and he confirms that's where they ended up.

Yet Gary Heseltine says he's proven it's not a lighthouse. The witness statements definitely mention the lighthouse is what they ended up seeing when they followed the lights, so it's Heseltine that's distorting the evidence. Who are we to believe, the eyewitnesses, or Heseltine?

The answer should be obvious.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The last I heard about this case, the story had changed so much it was almost unrecognizable. I've saved the video for watching later. I'd love to see the thing sorted out; I hope this is the video that does it. Thanks a lot....

Yes the story has changed. Penniston in particular keeps adding apparent fabrications to his more recent accounts that weren't in previous accounts, like his little notebook, etc. I can't believe a word he says anymore, his story has changed so much. Even Halt changed his story when he realized his initial story meant he was looking at the lighthouse.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FireMoon
For those confused by all the claims and counter claims over the incidents then this is really a very good place to consolidate what is actually known as opposed to the huge amount of noise that has been generated on all sides. What it does illustrate though is this, just how shabby the so called investigations by certain parties have been and just how fast and loose they have played with the evidence to support their own hypotheses to suit their own agendas.

He's playing with the evidence more than anybody I've seen.

Here are excerpts of the actual eyewitness statements of Burroughs and Cabansag (the full statements are available at the link):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Burroughs:

As we went down the east-gate road and the road that leads into the forest, the lights were moving back and they appeared to stop in a bunch of trees. We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that let into where the lights were coming from, and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman screaming. Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises, and there was a lot of movement in the woods.

All three of us hit the ground and what ever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field. We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field.

You could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse.

So they followed the lights and ended up seeing the lighthouse.

Cabansag:

We figured the lights were coming from past the forrest, since nothing was visible when we past through the woody forrest. We would see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found It to be a lit up farm house. After we had passed throught the forrest, we thought it had to be an aircraft accident. So did CSC as well. But we ran and walked a good 2 miles past out the vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was X only a beacon light off In the distance.

Here he calls the lighthouse beacon and he confirms that's where they ended up.

Yet Gary Heseltine says he's proven it's not a lighthouse. The witness statements definitely mention the lighthouse is what they ended up seeing when they followed the lights, so it's Heseltine that's distorting the evidence. Who are we to believe, the eyewitnesses, or Heseltine?

The answer should be obvious.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
The last I heard about this case, the story had changed so much it was almost unrecognizable. I've saved the video for watching later. I'd love to see the thing sorted out; I hope this is the video that does it. Thanks a lot....

Yes the story has changed. Penniston in particular keeps adding apparent fabrications to his more recent accounts that weren't in previous accounts, like his little notebook, etc. I can't believe a word he says anymore, his story has changed so much. Even Halt changed his story when he realized his initial story meant he was looking at the lighthouse.

It's absolutely absurd to say these guy's somehow got fooled by the light from a distant lighthouse. Absolute nonsense.

reply to post by DrunkYogi

You sound like Heseltine, saying that, well it just couldn't have happened.

But read the eyewitness statements, which say that what Heseltine said couldn't have happened (spending hours following lighthouse lights), is what happened. Also note that they say they didn't know it was a lighthouse until they got closer to it.

People who don't even believe the eyewitness' own statements are in denial.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by DrunkYogi

 

You sound like Heseltine, saying that, well it just couldn't have happened.

But read the eyewitness statements, which say that what Heseltine said couldn't have happened (spending hours following lighthouse lights), is what happened. Also note that they say they didn't know it was a lighthouse until they got closer to it.

People who don't even believe the eyewitness' own statements are in denial.

edit on 16-7-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

They weren't the only people there.........

Jim Penniston's official USAF sketches, do they look like a lighthouse to you?








And of course Charles Halt's audio tape.........

www.ufocasebook.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am partially with you on this but if you read the statements it does seem clear that they were following different lights (red and blue) and that the lighthouse beacon and farmhouse are separate light sources.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Heseltine has personally interviewed everyone who will talk to him from the case, meanwhile you rely on something posted on-line. Typical double standards, then again, you're happy to believe that mirages can manoeuvre round a jet flying at 350 MPH so I guess you'll believe any old tosh.

I don't necessarily agree with Heseltine's conclusions on the origin of the objects, as the honourable member for Down the Warren, The Gut has alluded to, I have my own take on events. Be that as it may, Heseltine is so far, the only person to have collected everything together and presented it as whole and who, has first hand knowledge of operational procedures on a base containing nuclear ammunition.

Where I am in total accordance with Heseltine is over his issue with every documentary that seeks to use illustrations that are often wholly unlike those described by witnesses It is not just the Rendlesham case, this is done with rather, any number of pro or anti UFO documentaries. .For the first time many people will now have been informed, by someone with direct experience, about the back story to the incident. The parts that simply haven;t been talked about before, ie what would have gone on on the base during the sightings and Halt has confirmed Heseltine's trained investigative instincts about "the tower".

With your typical disdain for actual facts, you totally ignore that Heseltine himself makes the point, that the witnesses statements about the in depth happening are, in some cases, not wholly to be taken at face value as it is almost certain that during the debriefing they were mentally toyed with in some attempt to make sure their testimony does';t quite hang together should they "go public"

However, what Heseltine does do, is show that, the initial sighting on the first night could not have been the lighthouse and lasted for some considerable time BEFORE anyone went out to investigate which totally wrecks the idea it was space debris, the lighthouse or some meteor that triggered the search. For me, that had always been something I wanted to know for sure and now I do, I am happy to accept that something rather extraordinary happened over those 3 nights.

Thanks for creating this thread, I haven't seen this particular video on Rendlesham

For those of you not familiar with Gary Heseltines work, here's his website which is a collection of UFO incidents and reports from serving police officers on/off duty. There's a lot of good reports here and the fact they were made by police officers can only add to the credibility

www.prufospolicedatabase.co.uk...

reply to post by FireMoon


I can't wait to watch this one!! Saved for later...

Thanks for finding something new, according to most of the responses here!

reply to post by FireMoon


This doc video is very interesting. S&F for your kindness in sharing it with us.

I just finished watching a couple of videos about this last week in this thread by Sled735:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those were good too, for anyone who missed them. They are in the second or third post.

OK I wanted to say something about this lighthouse theory that I've never read before, it's almost certainly been mentioned though as it's simple. I've just never read it.

Let's say the lights they saw was the lighthouse.

Why only on those 3 (?) nights?

Why not on any other night barring fog/haar?

Why can it not be replicated on video?

The lighthouse explanation is a total copout IMO.

Originally posted by aardhaggis
Why only on those 3 (?) nights?

Why not on any other night barring fog/haar?

One night there was a meteor that had nothing to do with the lighthouse.

They wouldn't keep chasing the lighthouse lights once they knew they were coming from the lighthouse. Why do you think they would?

And how do you figure the eyewitness statements say they followed the lights and ended up finally identifying lights coming from the lighthouse when they got close enough to make a positive id on the source?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by aardhaggis
Why only on those 3 (?) nights?

Why not on any other night barring fog/haar?

One night there was a meteor that had nothing to do with the lighthouse.

They wouldn't keep chasing the lighthouse lights once they knew they were coming from the lighthouse. Why do you think they would?

And how do you figure the eyewitness statements say they followed the lights and ended up finally identifying lights coming from the lighthouse when they got close enough to make a positive id on the source?

edit on 16-7-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

So one night it was a Meteor and another night it was the Lighthouse and i will take a guess here i bet the third night was drum rollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllCrash....................Swamp Gas.......Yeah...........

Think about what you are saying mate!

I think Arbitrageur is right about it being the lighthouse. Honestly, the story behind this has become weirder and weirder. I do question the mental sanity of some of them. Some of them might even be in denial about what happened. Overall, just because these guys were servicemen on base, doesn't mean they cannot be mistaken. I think what happened is a few of them were mistaken and they stole the show. Obviously, saying it was a lighthouse is not near as fun as saying it was aliens. If you want to sell a book or own the show, you say it was aliens. I never thought I'd say this about this case. There was a point when I thought it was one of the better cases to point to, but times change.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for the response but you haven't really answered my questions.

Why if the incident or at least part of it was the lighthouse can it not be replicated on video? Should be really easy to do.

Why weren't the base personnel out every clear night being fooled by the lighthouse? It doesn't add up unless it wasn't the lighthouse.