Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

originally posted by: mirageman
I don't think he's telling lies. I just think it's a case of trying to remember things from 36 years ago.

Thank you for your insightful comments and I feel the same way. In the JAL 1628 case, I remember that no translators were on hand to interrogate the 747 crew about the UFO they saw at the time the incident happened, which is unfortunate because that would have been their best recollection of the event. They did interview the captain (and maybe the rest of the crew) a couple of weeks later, and by that time the captain was relating the sequence of events on what maneuvers the plane took to avoid collision with the UFO. I'm as sure as I can be that he had no incentive to lie about that, but when his statement was compared with the radar data it showed that the captain already misremembered the sequence of events after less than a month.

So having an unaltered memory 36 years later, especially for such a well publicized case is probably humanly impossible no matter how good and noble the intentions of the person trying to recall the event.

I can remember the exact moment when I found out John Lennon had been murdered 36 years ago but I don't remember what I ate for dinner that day. I think Steve Longero's memories are probably also influenced by what he's seen and heard about the incident in the time that has passed. Unfortunately his account adds nothing much of interest to the case.

Exactly and I didn't want to sound like too much of a negative Nelly by saying that myself but since you already said it, I can certainly agree with that 100%, and not just in this case but I'd say in any case where a witness makes their first statement about an event which has been in the public eye for the last 36 years. It's only human to have difficulty separating 36 year old personal memories from the barrage of other information about the same events we've been exposed to, and I suspect at least some degree of confabulation is inevitable even in the best of us, which means mis-remembering something without any intent to deceive.

a reply to: stealthyaroura

There were questions in Parliament about the prison evacuation but no records were kept. See page 2 of the thread.

a reply to: mirageman

The bigger question is why evacuate? Were the prisoners in imminent danger? Likely to see something they shouldn't? Or was the space required for interring foreigners who had arrived on our shores?

Barring a Soviet Sub being captured I can't see the last one. So I'll go with either:
- a nuclear threat
- a conventional explosives threat
- a biological threat
- a chemical threat

Yet there was no rumour of a plan to evacuate the civilian population!
So we are either looking at a baseless rumour or at an event that TPTB expected to occur imminently that would be seen from the prison.

a reply to: mirageman
yeah read that and my post source quote was from Nick Redfern, just had to ask incase you had found a little more info. it's just another part of the mess that has become Rendlesham.

Thanks all the same and a stella thread on this case.

the gift that keeps on giving

a reply to: stealthyaroura

a reply to: ctj83

I was never able to find more about the prison evacuation story. If you follow the trail of this It's also basically a "bloke told me this" type of story.

Much like the story that suddenly surfaced last year, care of a Linda Moulton Howe report.. That one was about a house, within the area of the sightings at Rendlesham, close to the East Gate of Bentwaters. According to the story the house suddenly vanished over the Christmas weekend (Fri 26th - Mon 29th December 1980). There is no evidence of that happening.

My opinion on both stories is "interesting if true" as a certain MoD employee likes to say. It's important to leave no clue unturned. However I don't think it's worth wasting time on either. They are nothing but snippets of gossip and totally unverifiable. Even if we could prove, or disprove, both stories it would still leave us with very similar questions about the main incident.

Does that relate to Butler, street and randles witness in an MOD house that then vanished? If so that is documented multiple times by the authors.

I now dismiss the prison evacuation as the only rational explanation left no longer works. I thought the issue must have been concern that the prisoners would see something. However highpoint is too far inland to have any connection and isn't near anything interesting.

a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for replying mm, oh god that vanishing house crap!
I recall hearing her on coast 2 coast and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of such a claim,then we are talking LMH.

Is there any need..... facepalm
Cheers pal.

a reply to: ctj83

Does that relate to Butler, street and randles witness in an MOD house that then vanished? If so that is documented multiple times by the authors.

I checked the vanishing building story with another member on here who was specifically researching that phenomenon and had nothing to do at all with Rendlesham. They knew as much you and I. I'll expand on the story if people are really interested. But the conclusion was 'nothing of substance' to go on.

As for a vanishing witness I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. We might need to clarify that one.

Evidence Larry Warren Faked A10 UFO photograph







sacha-christie-infomaniachousewife.blogspot.co.uk...

a reply to: infomaniachousewife

Thank you for this update Sacha.

Another nail in the coffin for the Larry Warren story. Surely now any reasonably minded person who has looked at this case in detail will conclude that Larry was just a wannabe in all of this. Notably Peter Robbins has even turned his back on all of this. So how can we trust anything Larry has said was true about Rendlesham now?



I think the power of the modern internet caught up with Larry in the end and he got found out for what he is. It's hard to deny things when people can hear exactly what you have said by downloading a podcast of the radio show you were on, looking at youtube interviews, or seeing that pathetic photoshop of John Lennon next to Larry. Sadly the attention and modicum of fame goes to people's heads.

I also noted a while back that Jim Penniston's autograph was up for sale at £20/$25 recently.



Link

2016 was a crazy year on a number of levels. Hopefully 2017 will be a lot more pleasant year for you and your family.

All the best as always MM

Yeah i think the show's over for him now. What he has done still blows my mind. Whatever the outcome, this Christmas and New year is going to be the total opposite of last years.

Cheers MM

a reply to: infomaniachousewife

Just when I thought that the case had gone cold, I see this. Another excellent find.

If you go back through my posts you'll find that I started with a strong belief in Larry, Peter and his story. In light of the past year I can only say it looks like I was VERY VERY wrong.

People like to ignore this or brush it under the carpet but in the Robbins / Warren book, there is a chapter on them returning to the Forest and having their own alien encounter with the lights and possibly with aliens coming up to them.

In light of the last year, I think that the whole thing has to now be viewed with great suspicion, sadly.

I'll wrap up by adding the following thoughts:
Warren seems to connected to an awful lot of photographic manipulation (see the plasma candy floss photo I got from one of his powerpoint presentations at Woodbridge)

Does anyone seriously believe he's created these supposed frauds himself? Is he a photoshop whiz? Or have these photos been created by another party on his behalf?

- Interior of the underground base
- The candy floss plasma ufo
- The A 10 ufo companion (just posted by Sacha)
- The three lights in the dark craft photo (basis for the candy floss plasma ufo?)
- The celebrity photos
- The John Lennon drawing

Anything I've missed?

a reply to: mirageman

I'll add a few more thoughts based on a quick look through a friend's copy of the Halt Perspective:

- Halt has essentially maintained the same story since the event
- Halt did modify his story to account for Warren / Bustinza's story
- The recent revelations about Warren mean Halt was probably right all along

Regarding the book, I've come to the conclusion that Halt is largely honest, and what he does hold back are simply classified facts that are partially related and not of huge importance.

I did notice two repeated statements from Halt, as if he was trying to overemphasis a mundane fact for a reason he couldn't quite say or didn't believe personally.

- An A-10 flew a package to Rammenstein. Halt states it was a review report for a promotional board to see...
- A Galaxy then collected something from Bentwaters.

I'd like to point out a few strange conclusions based on the past year:

- Much of what Warren has created seems to be a forgery. Yet he was the first to break the story. Why ??
- Halt puts repeated focus on the A-10 package collection but claims it was a promotional report. Why repeat a non salient fact so often? I suspect he is less than convinced
- Who was Karan, the supposed wife of a Bentwaters' pilot who provided photos of a supposed soviet satellite on board a Galaxy? (they can be seen in the Halt Perspective)
- Why was Lori told that by an alleged electrical engineer at a military function that a special 'non indigenous' heat tolerant plastic was retrieved after the event?

a reply to: ctj83

I hope to give a few up dates after Christmas when I know whether Halt's book has been delivered or not and when I've had some free time as well!!

I do think Halt is keeping some things back due to his security oaths (he is after all on a military pension). Whether those things are significant to the case is another thing. Halt did concede that Larry Warren might have been out on the periphery of the event somewhere. But, like Burroughs, he strongly hints that Larry took Bustinza's story and ran with that. Peter Robbins seems to confirm so in the video I posted above.

I did notice two repeated statements from Halt, as if he was trying to overemphasis a mundane fact for a reason he couldn't quite say or didn't believe personally. - An A-10 flew a package to Rammenstein. Halt states it was a review report for a promotional board to see...

The information relating to the A10 leaving for Ramstein could also be linked to this loose minute from Feb 1981 (which I'm sure is posted earlier in the thread). But it's so big now that it's easier to just post it again here.

The key details concern General Gabriel (who at the time was the USAFE Commander in Chief and of the Allied NATO Air Forces based at Ramstein in West Germany) are in the official MoD files on the case.

General Gabriel had made an official visit to the Twin Bases in early December of 1980. Now he may have made regular monthly visits to all his major USAF bases in Europe. But this seems like a little more than coincidence that he turned up again and removed evidence a month later.

....tape recorders of the evidence had been handed to General Gabriel who happened to be visiting the station. Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask if we could have tape recordings as well

What tape recorders did he remove? It could mean Halt's tape recording. But as it clearly states recorders (plural) and does not say 'tape' then my guess is it was recordings from the communications net on the nights in question. If it was only Halt's recording then it would have been easy to dub a cassette and send it on the next flight to Ramstein where Gabriel was based. The fact that Gabriel collected them personally suggests they were of extreme importance to the head of USAFE. Was this action linked to the 'report' sent to Ramstein?

Remember Halt's tape is a snapshot of around 20 mins from 4 hours or so of investigations that night. If the whole series of communications recordings from the Halt night were removed then there is some serious missing evidence.



I assume the RAF never got hold of copies. Because this is where the trail appears to have ran cold.

- Much of what Warren has created seems to be a forgery. Yet he was the first to break the story. Why ??

It's true that he was first 'witness' to go public once the story was gathering pace in 1983. Although Dot Street, Brenda Butler and Jenny Randles had all worked on the story beforehand and the mysterious JD Ingalls was blabbing in Suffolk long before Larry Warren. I suspect it is Larry's own self publicity that made him seem like the man who put it all out there.

Maybe there was also some sort of unwritten agreement with Adrian Bustinza that Larry would get Adrian's story out there. But as the years went by, and Adrian remained silent, Larry couldn't help adding pieces to the story of his own.

I'll come back to the other points after Xmas.

In terms of the proposed prison evacuation, then the circumstances of such must mean that the prisoners themselves were in danger (or similar), sufficient to warrant the risks of attempting this type of action.

How active were the IRA in 1980?

Just a thought.

Of course, this could all have originated with the wrong person overhearing one of the prison's policy officers talking about drafting an evacuation proceedure doc... They'll all have to have them as standard practice, just like a fire evacuation policy in any commercial building, but it doesn't mean they're planning on having a fire ;-)

a reply to: GovernmentSauce

There is a list of IRA activity during 1980 here : link

The IRA had also murdered Airey Neave and Earl Mountbatten a year earlier in 1979. But I don't see anything there that we could link to a prison evacuation.

Unfortunately, with nothing but whispers to verify the story, the prison evacuation situation remains hearsay. It could well be someone was talking about drafting evac policies at the prison and a rumour grew from that. But Lord HIll Norton got nowhere in the House of Lords with his questions and I don't really think the story is worth pursuing unless some better evidence become available.

For those still following this case Charles Halt did an interview to promote his book on Podcast UFO a couple of weeks ago.



I did get a copy of "The Halt Perspective" for Xmas but have yet to start reading it. It's a huge volume!

^ I agree completely mate. My supposition was mere thought-fodder; especially given their prediliction for calling in bomb threats both genuine and fake. As you say, without anything further to corroborate it seems a dead end - although for my money it would take a fair amount of evidence to convince me of a connection with the RFI.

Will you keep us updated on your thoughts re: the Halt book? Very intrigued as to how you find it, and what it has to say.

a reply to: mirageman

After Sacha's latest expose of the original A-10 photo, I wonder if there is any other 'evidence' that might also be suspect?

Regardless, this latest update poses a very interesting question:

We know that Penniston was present and involved in the RFI, yet we also know from an ATS member that the binary coordinates cannot be genuine. Is it possible or probable that there is a link between the source or motivation to create the binary code coordinates and the photo 'evidence' presented by Warren?

Or should we view the less solid evidence from both Penniston and Warren as being unrelated?

My hunch is that the same situation that supplied the coordinates to Penniston is, at least in some way, connected to some of the materials that I believe were supplied to Warren.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

After Sacha's latest expose of the original A-10 photo, I wonder if there is any other 'evidence' that might also be suspect?

Regardless, this latest update poses a very interesting question:

We know that Penniston was present and involved in the RFI, yet we also know from an ATS member that the binary coordinates cannot be genuine. Is it possible or probable that there is a link between the source or motivation to create the binary code coordinates and the photo 'evidence' presented by Warren?

Or should we view the less solid evidence from both Penniston and Warren as being unrelated?

My hunch is that the same situation that supplied the coordinates to Penniston is, at least in some way, connected to some of the materials that I believe were supplied to Warren.

I'm not too sure we have to look into a 'supply' issue here tbh. Self promotion is a powerful impulse for certain people, and can be highly lucrative too. The motivation of Penniston, and now Warren, must be called into some question imho before we consider them innocent victims who have been fed disinfo.

The two English gentlemen who questioned Vince Thurkettle about lights in the sky days after the incident must have been part of the MOD investigation

Not necessarily. They could well have been local journos who got the story from the local police. At that time, the local police were the only people off base who knew about the events, as they had been called out to the site on the first night and the morning after.They were also called out on the Halt night, but didn't bother to turn up as they didn't take it seriously.