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

a reply to: Gaos0


I bet there is some hot gossip going re this )
It did cross my mind re the equipment and were this is going to now
fit, and what might transpire. It would be very interesting to see if this
company somehow involves in all of this with that equipment ?

a reply to: Marylongstockings

The glyphs first appeared in the publication of Georgina Bruni's book, 'You Can't Tell the People' . . . Nov, 2000.

a reply to: Gaos0

That's correct Gary.

I see also John is bringing it up and is questioning
why the lack of mention re the binary ?

a reply to: Marylongstockings

What people are NOT doing is 'crossing off' the things that HAVE been answered. For example, the "he said he didn't get closer than 50 metres to the craft" issue. I answered this via what Jim had already told people concerning the "official" statement that was typed up after Jim submitted his 4-page statement, and which omitted things he wrote and included things he did not write.

The thing is, you people will immediately jump on Jim Penniston as soon as a slight discrepancy or suspected contradiction of sorts turns up. In other words, you are prepared to call Jim a liar, and at a moment's notice, and are trying your damned hardest to prove he is a liar even when you know that government people lie to us all the time . . . the "official" witness statement being a case in point. How many other things (and this includes people being used as unsuspecting, useful idiots) have been messed with to confuse the researchers?

There are many other questions that Jim will answer when the pending book is published. Jim sent me his contributions to the book, which is a 'start to end' account, also covering the aftermath of his own experience on the night in question, and at the same time, he answers most of the questions people have been asking. And, I am taking notes so that all the questions people are asking now will be dealt with and hopefully answered.

originally posted by: Gaos0

What people are NOT doing is 'crossing off' the things that HAVE been answered. For example, the "he said he didn't get closer than 50 metres to the craft" issue. I answered this via what Jim had already told people concerning the "official" statement that was typed up after Jim submitted his 4-page statement, and which omitted things he wrote and included things he did not write.

Gary, other people don’t just go with Jim's claims but they look at the big picture and the correlations between the different witness statements.

Whatever was seen in the forest, was only seen for a very short time and the men never came close enough to touch any object.
This is confirmed by the witness statements of Burroughs, Cabansag, Chandler, and Buran.
They tell a consistent story that is corroborated by Jim’s witness statement.
John Burroughs never saw him touch any craft or take any notes.
John Burroughs never even saw a craft, but just lights.

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to doubt Jim’s words, even in the light of indisputable evidence that he fabricated the binary codes, is your own problem.

Jim should be the last one complaining about copyright violations by the way.
He violated the copyright of Sacred-Destinations.com by copying their coordinates of Caracol, Tai Shan, and the Naxos Portara when he fabricated his binary codes.

Not nice for someone who prides himself on his integrity.

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Marylongstockings

What people are NOT doing is 'crossing off' the things that HAVE been answered. For example, the "he said he didn't get closer than 50 metres to the craft" issue. I answered this via what Jim had already told people concerning the "official" statement that was typed up after Jim submitted his 4-page statement, and which omitted things he wrote and included things he did not write.

How then do you explain away Chandler's statement that Penniston told him the same 50 meters? Chandler is lying too?

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: mirageman

Jim actually discussed this issue with me, and acknowledged that they had originated with the craft he claims he witnessed, but at the end of the day, the glyphs came through him. He drew them down, and so without any solid proof of the craft he saw, then 'technically' at the end of the day they originated from Jim. But, that does not imply that he created them, as you are implying.

I was implying that if he is trying to sue for copyright then he is claiming the glyphs (or to be specific his rendition of the glyphs) are his own intellectual property.

This is JIm's sketch.



Unless anything comes out looking exactly like his sketch then he has no intellectual property rights.

If I draw a picture of a certain burger chain's arch in the shape of a letter M then I can claim the intellectual property rights over my sketch.But I do not hold copyright over the use of the 13th letter of the alphabet nor the logo used by that chain.

a reply to: Guest101

You are making assumptions again, stating them as "fact" . . . which is folly - especially coming so soon after you also stated as if it was a fact, that Jim had lifted the glyphs from the OKM company when we know that the glyphs were published in Georgina Bruni's book two years before the company began.
Can you actually see or make the necessary distinction between what is assumption, opinion, and fact?
I don't think you can, because you say, "The fact that you cannot bring yourself to doubt Jim's words . . . etc.," is assuming that I have not ever doubted what Jim says, which is not true.
Unlike you, I personally doubt the authenticity of the official witness statements having actually been written, (or written without any interference by the officials or agents ordering them to do so), by the men in question.

a reply to: mirageman

mirageman . . . so what? What has that got to do with anything if Jim is successfully able to sue them or not? That is an ostensible move to get what he really wants - which is some answers as to why they have taken the glyphs and displayed them on their equipment.

a reply to: Gaos0

Hi Gary,

I am busy looking here and there and into the company background, which
in itself is interesting. But I am sure there will be people here who are
very skilled and will be looking into this stuff now and probably know
a lot more than I. You say you have seen the correspondence
between this company and Jim? But the response was vague.
Why would this be? They have nothing to worry about from a
law point of view. They either were inspired by Jims symbols
or they were not? What exactly did this company say.

I am not pointing fingers here at all. I actually find this element pretty interesting
and very peculiar in the light of your own findings.

But I think it does need looking into further, it is obviously
potentially pretty serious.

a reply to: Gaos0

Do we know when those glyphs where used for the first time
on their equipment?

The company we know started in 2002.

Is there any other company priory to 2002
that they were associated with or part of
which had that logo on any of
their equipment.

We don't know their past history nor the
people associated or any other type of work.

Their equipment is also suitable for military use too
and very Hi tech when I look at their specs

I guess the easiest , is for the company to say
they were inspired by Jims symbols
But, this seemingly has not occurred

a reply to: Marylongstockings

I've found a nice company history here:


Andreas Krauss, one of the founders of OKM, was already producing ground radar equipment before 2001.

While the new equipment detected metal objects at depths that exceeded that of two-box models, it also allowed the user to identify voids, such as caves, tunnels or, in the case of Europe, military bunkers and civilian bomb shelters, as well as non-metallic objects, such as clay containers, buried tombs (located in support of archeological surveys) or even wooden boxes through the signature produced within the computer software developed by Christian. Initially building units in his garage, as some of the U.S. metal detector manufacturers did when they started decades earlier, Andreas and his engineers worked to improve the performance, user-interface and features on subsequent models. In 2001, a partner joined the company, Ingolf Mueller, and OKM Ortungstechnik GbR, a Private Partnership, was created.

Andreas also has a special interest in Egyptian history:

The new building incorporates Andreas’s interest in Egyptian history, seen throughout the current factory, as well as his home in terms of decor and the OKM logo. It is being built in the shape of a glass-sided pyramid with a pair of sphinx statues at the entrance to the facility... measuring some 92 feet high, it will be one of the tallest buildings in the area and likely the only gold-colored glass pyramid in all of Germany!

You’ll get an impression of this building here.

So he could have used Egyptian-inspired glyphs on his equipment, brochures, etc. before 2001.

a reply to: Guest101

Yes , yes, you are on the ball

And also what about Dr Heinz Walker

Am just plodding through his background.

But you have presented this well guest 101.

Just a side line and something and nothing.

Jim did live in Germany for a number of years.

His particular love was of Egyptian things and
mentioned he would visit all the museum's
there which had Egyptian artefacts in them.

I don't recall exactly where he lived, except
someplace in Germany.

A little bit more here:

Quote,
Already in the year 1998 OKM introduced the 3d ground scanning technology into the world market and created new standard in metal detecting. Today OKM products are approved and established worldwide and the company is one of the leading manufacturers of 3d imaging locators.


okm-metal-detectors.blogspot.co.za...

a reply to: Guest101

If you believe that the glyphs originated with the people that started the company OKM, then you have to prove 'when exactly' the glyphs had originated and displayed on the equipment. There is only one example of this so far - the 'Gepard Ground Penetrating Radar' device, which appears to have been manufactured relatively recently and appears on this page, which is copyrighted 2005 - 2016.

www.metaldetectingworld.com...

As for the email exchanges with the company that Jim showed me, any further questions about them is for Jim to answer, not me. Obviously, I am not at liberty to go into detail regarding the content of private emails that were exchanged between other people.

originally posted by: Marylongstockings
a reply to: Guest101

Jim did live in Germany for a number of years.

His particular love was of Egyptian things and
mentioned he would visit all the museum's
there which had Egyptian artefacts in them.

I don't recall exactly where he lived, except
someplace in Germany.

Interesting in that respect is that the glyphs do appear to be Egyptian hieroglyphs.

In the end it doesn't matter much whether they came from Andreas Krauss or from some museum, does it?

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Guest101

If you believe that the glyphs originated with the people that started the company OKM, then you have to prove 'when exactly' the glyphs had originated and displayed on the equipment.

I don’t think you’re in the position to ask me to proof anything, Gary.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that these symbols and the binary code came from a ‘craft of unknown origin’.

So instead, Jim has to explain:

- Why the first coordinates match the Woodbridge Town Center coordinates of Tele-Atlas up to the last decimal

- Why the coordinates of Caracol match the Caracol coordinates given by Sacred-Destinations.com up to the last decimal (which have been there from at least 2009)

- Why the coordinates of Tai Shan match the Tai Shan coordinates given by Sacred-Destinations.com up to the last decimal (which have been there from at least 2009)

- Why the coordinates of the Naxos Portara match the Naxos Portara coordinates given by Sacred-Destinations.com up to the last decimal (which have been there from at least 2009)

- Why the ‘craft of unknown origin’ made a common spelling error and made the stupid decision to use ASCII binary.

Like I explained in my post above, the origin of the glyphs is just a minor issue in comparison.

Does Jim deserve any more of my time? I don't think so. I'm interested in UFO cases, not in fabricated stories.

a reply to: Guest101

Gary,

Yes it is interesting.

However it surely has to be simple for Jim to verify the symbol story.
If this came to light in Nov 2015 it is now June 2016
Either the company used Jims glyphs
or they were their own.

Of course it matters. If the Glyphs were theirs, then the storyline
to Jims claims changes entirely.
No touched symbols, no craft, not binary code beamed into his mind
upon touching those symbols, so of course its important.

But like you say. It does not matter if the binary came from under a rock.

But it would certainly change Jims story line to how he received them.

This is only assumption of course and it should be easy enough for Jim to verify
as fact the company used his symbols.

And if they did. Well great stuff. A very interesting company to boot.

a reply to: Guest101

In my opinion, it is imperative for Jim
to get these issues sorted and as soon as possible.
For obvious reasons.

a reply to: Guest101

Guest101 writes: "The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that these symbols and the binary code came from a ‘craft of unknown origin’. "

That's fine, so you're using the English defamation law criterion - i.e., "burden of proof."

Actually, the burden of proof lies with whoever is MAKING THE ASSERTION.

Now, allow me to make a very important point here, and I would ask others to take note.

The fact is, Jim has been unfairly treated. And the reason why he has is because people have not actually acknowledged the fact that initially, Jim did NOT want to publicly tell his side of the story as to what he experienced that December morning in 1980 - and that also includes the existence of the binary code.

He was approached by researchers and ASKED to tell his story of what happened, which he 'reluctantly' did.
He was also ASKED about the binary code in the book, which, again, he was 'reluctant' to talk about - one of the reasons why he sat on it for 30 years. However, he was persuaded to talk about it and explain the "why" and "how" of it's existence by those who saw the binary code in his notebook.
Jim told me that as he was leafing through the notebook on the set of 'Ancient Aliens' in which he and John Burroughs were only going to talk about the event they witnessed, it was John Burroughs who first spotted the ones and zeroes, and asked him "What's that?" Jim says he really did not want to explain this, but John insisted and with Linda Moulton Howe and the film crew of Prometheus Entertainment, he finally persuaded Jim to talk about the ones and zeroes and explain them.
This would have been typical of John, as John is the person who craves attention and will use anything to that end. That's actually ironic because now John as fallen out with Jim, John is now getting his attention by criticising Jim and trying to debunk the binary code, which he was instrumental in bringing to public attention.

At the end of the day, Jim simply did what was asked of him. He has told his story as to what really happened to him on that morning, and he has simply expected people to take him at his word.

So, the simple fact is, Jim doesn't have to prove anything. He could just as well turn his back on the whole thing, which is what he wanted to do, but couldn't because people have always questioned him and badgered him about his experience. And now, because people are 'seeing' "evidence" that things just don't add up, they are accusing Jim of being a liar and placing the burden of proof on him to prove the details in his story. However, Jim has told me he really couldn't care less if people don't believe him, and he doesn't have to explain anything more or prove anything, which is why he has been quiet. However, because of what I have discovered in the code, he sees that it is only right that we publish these findings for the record and at the same time he will tell the aftermath of his story and also answer the questions that have come up about his story.

So seeing as he did not announce anything voluntarily, and did not ASSERT any claims and had simply complied with the wishes of other people who wanted to get to the truth of what happened, then if YOU don't believe Jim's story, as was asked of him by others, and believe that Jim must be a liar then the burden of proof is on the accuser . . . YOU, to PROVE he is a liar.
That's the simple fact of the matter.