• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

As frustrated as Biedny

Free episodes:

Now you're gettin' it....

This is a change in attitude from your first post. A negative reaction is almost guaranteed when making proclamations about either what "is" or what "is not" reality without citation, evidence, or data to support the opinion. Statements made this way will launch you into unsolicited debate every time.

I don't mind a debate, just wanted to express that I didn't come here looking for a fight.

No one knows this better than the kooks over at CSICOP who have been cursed for decades by their own scientific precept: "You can't prove a negative"
....the most you can do is attempt to smother it with facts.

I think most of the "debate" involved in this thread is based on the same quantity and quality of evidence that I put forth...not much. It appears clear as day that it is a battle of opinion, not facts. (Some believe others that say they saw 'em; I don't)

The folks in this forum have sought to extend you a fair degree of latitude because you're a new member but in the future be prepared to defend broad statements whether they be accepting or rejecting of any particular aspect of the subject.

I agree that there are a number of tolerant, self-confident individuals who have given me latitude and an open mind, others, like the ever intellectual, and original Deliverance reference, and point by point refutations with opinion presented as fact/evidence, and an accusation of trolling...not so much. i frankly do not care. I am what I am and bring what I bring. Along with an opinion that is contrary to the collective, I bring courtesy and curiosity.

Thank you forum members for extending such latitude to the new guy. Just know, I am new to the forum, not the topic nor the cases most spoken about.

Challenges are good. Controversy can stimulate. Healthy conflict can bring us to a higher standard of challenging ourselves and others. Cherish it.

Peace,
B
 
If you could point me to a site with more than the re-tellings of the witness' story, it would be much appreciated.
Many Thanks for the discussion.
B

Try this documentary
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v1097457pfzykY5C#

You'll need to download the veoh player. Fast forward to 10:20 and you can see most of the evidence for the Belgian case I spoke about earlier. It doesnt show all the evidence in this film but a large part of it.

As i said in the last post, it doesnt proove ET, but it prooves as much as can ever be expected that there is something going on up there.
 
Brado wrote” I spent over an hour looking at sites containing Bentwaters material.”

Brado also brings a solipsistic unconscious when dealing with series and time.
 
Brado wrote” I spent over an hour looking at sites containing Bentwaters material.”

Brado also brings a solipsistic unconscious when dealing with series and time.

Actually it was the clock in the lower left of my computer screen. But how would one know about my unconscious workings from a post...possibly from a solipisticly unconscious viewpoint? Hmm?

Here is something more meaty from a post by Jose Collado in another thread. This is certainly not from my unconscious mind: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4135
but it puts the Bentwaters case to bed in my mind (Regardless of the posts to the contary following Brian's arguments).

Thank you Brian Dunning, for bringing my solipsistic unconscious to a conscious level. Now I know I am right!

Thank you pupilstutor, for adding to my vocabulary.
Peace,
B
 
This topic does not frustrate me. It is something stirred deep within me that requires further dissemination and study. In all of this I have learned much related information. I will continue to pursue this topic, this broad-blanketed umbrella, this para-normal, and I am content even if answers are never forthcoming.
 
This topic does not frustrate me. It is something stirred deep within me that requires further dissemination and study. In all of this I have learned much related information. I will continue to pursue this topic, this broad-blanketed umbrella, this para-normal, and I am content even if answers are never forthcoming.

...oh, I am still looking at other occurrances. I do want to narrow my scope a bit and, thus, have to weed some things out. There are so many cases. Trust me, if new Bentwaters info comes out that piques my interest, I will be right back on it.

Great point about all of the other related information you would not have otherwise come across had you not been studying these cases.
Peace,
B
 
....I spent over an hour looking at sites containing Bentwaters material. The only pictures I found were pictures of the base and pictures of the drawing of symbol type elements that the witness drew. It is very frustrating for me. all along I have been searching the internet for material on the most viable cases brought up here and in the show. The Bentwaters case seems to end up the same pot of "not really enough here" unless you value only the witness' testimony. Out of your equation of E+P+R, the only combination I can find on Bentwaters is E. If you could point me to a site with more than the re-tellings of the witness' story, it would be much appreciated.
Many Thanks for the discussion.
B

I apologize for the tardiness in my reply, I haven't been internetting much these past few days.

I don't think I phrased my previous response carefully enough- what I meant to say, was that since you seemed to be frustrated with the Roswell case, the Bentwaters case, in my opinion, is a better case with regards to the number of eyewitnesses, the relatively recentness of the event and the credibility of the witnesses.

I realize now that the phrasing of my reply implied that there was physical evidence from the Bentwaters case, and I do not believe that to be the case, other than some possible castings of imprints from the alleged landing site.
 
Brado, have you listened to the May 3, 2009 Paracast episode with Peter Robbins?

May 3, 2009 Peter Robbins | The Paracast with Gene Steinberg and David Biedny | The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

Veteran UFO researcher Peter Robbins, co-author of “Left at East Gate: A First-hand Account of the Rendlesham Forest Ufo Incident, Its Cover-up, and Investigation,” discusses the classic Rendlesham Forest incident, considered by some to be one of the best documented UFO cases, and its strange aftermath.

I had gotten tired of heaving the whole Bentwaters/Rendlesham Forest case until I heard Robbins on another podcast.

Really amazing story.

Unfortunately all the photos, film, etc., hasn't been released to the public, and probably never will be. If you are new to ufology, get used to that situation. It hasn't changed at all over the years.
 
Brado

Your search for truth is exemplary. Instead of acquainting yourself with the questions and problems of Rendlesham forest Incident you opted out for a ready-made solution. You get the solution you deserve.
 
Brado

Your search for truth is exemplary. Instead of acquainting yourself with the questions and problems of Rendlesham forest Incident you opted out for a ready-made solution. You get the solution you deserve.

If I had spent 10 years researching this for myself and came up with the same conclusion would would you have responded that my search for the truth was exemplary?

I have read enough web articles and seen the UFO Hunters program on Rendlesham to know that the skeptics' summary just about summed it up the way I saw it. Even one of our fellow Paracasters who appears to be a veteran in our forums and posted the link appears to believe the same thing.

There are so many mysteries out there and no one has time to thoroughly research all. I will have to trust someone's opinions on each matter so I don't spin my wheels. With the precious little time I have to read up on the paranormal, I will spend it on cases that show the most promise. If they are screened by someone else, and it helps me sort it out according to my priorities, all the better. That is the manager in me. And, if the clear truth comes out some day and it is contrary to what I believed or pursued, I will not be sad or embarrassed, I will be happy to know it is finally figured out.

As far as ready made solutions, anyone who has used the research presented by others and have not done the field investigations themselves, are using other's ready made solutions. And whether you put a significant amount of time and effort in and come up with an incomplete solution, or, if you put in much less effort to get an incomplete solution, the result is the same. In this case, I don't mind so much taking the easy way out. It leaves me time and energy to grapple with other things I am not quite sure about but am interested in.

Thanks for the response. May we all come upon the truth in our lifetime and may it be a good truth.
Peace,

B
 
If I had spent 10 years researching this for myself and came up with the same conclusion would would you have responded that my search for the truth was exemplary?

Um, I thought 'exemplary' was a good word! I guess the question is, would you have? You've decided to pick one answer among many pretty quickly and leave out considerable witness testimony. You asked, Jose responded with a link. You looked at it and said, "OK. I'm done." At least it doesn't sound like you've given this much time. I really recommend 'Left at East Gate' as a book that sums up the issues better than I can. That is, if you can spare the time.

I have read enough web articles and seen the UFO Hunters program on Rendlesham to know that the skeptics' summary just about summed it up the way I saw it. Even one of our fellow Paracasters who appears to be a veteran in our forums and posted the link appears to believe the same thing.

UFO Hunters? I think you will find that this show is not held in the highest regard here and should probably not be used in a citation. It's like relying on the National Enquirer. Given your propensity to dismiss witness testimony out of hand, I would have thought you would place UFO Hunters in the same category. I think Jose would agree with this, too. And yes, we can all depend on Jose ridiculing nearly anything that comes up. If it doesn't jump up and bite him in the ass and require stitches, it does not exist, period. I hasten to add that his is a valid point of view and he is, indeed, a respected (and needed) member of the -uh- cast.

I hope you will forgive the rest of us for continuing to investigate and discuss this most intriguing case. Perhaps it's just a lighthouse. yes, that's it, a lighthouse. Or not.
 
The Rendlesham Forest UFO

I've heard about Brian Dunn before and it's noteworthy that he is taking a particularly insidious approach to his attempts to debunk the case by suggesting in his final paragraphs that these men (who were charged by the US military to protect nuclear weapons and are now actively involved in a complex political movement to force disclosure of the reality of this phenomenon Halt/Penniston) did not make mistakes resultant from honest misidentifications, but knowingly conspired to fabricate events for attention and television. This is quite an accusation.

One of the most important details conveniently omitted from this review is that Penniston reported that he actually touched the craft with his hand and was able to make distinctions about it's composition, texture, and gradient . A statement that has never been refuted by the two other sentries that were with him that night. He's also explained the fact that his notes and drawings of the symbols were messy and fragmented because he was nervous, shaky, and freaked out by what he was seeing. (ie. date and time discrepancies.) I'm not famiiar with Burroughs ever making the statement that Penniston did not make any notes during the incident. I'd be interested to know when he made that statement and exactly what was said.

Dunn's analysis also makes no reference to Burroughs' testimony that he was isolated, drugged, and interrogated by members of AFOSI. Something that could account for the problems he has experienced with his memory of the events that persists to this day.

Dunn's attempt to shed witness credibility by claiming conflicting testimony was given by Halt's group regarding the color of the object being red, amber, or yellow depending on who you believe is specious. The object's color could easily have been transitional. Whether the lighthouse beacon was to the east or southeast has minor relevance and does not detract from Halt's statement that the team had referenced the lighthouse beacon throughout the event.

The police opinion that the impressions did not follow a set pattern is refuted by Penniston's testimony that the impressions formed a equidistant triangular patten and Dunn fails to mention that upon returning to the site, Penniston took plaster casts of the impressions and measured them.

Dunn states that the equipment that was used by Halt's team was not sensitive enough to detect 10x levels of background radiation. This is a different strategy from McGaha's assertions that Halt's team's measurements of 10x background levels were erroneous because the team was not using their equipment properly. McGaha's also explained the Penniston group's experiences as hallucinations brought on by co-fabulation, stepping far afield from amateur astronomy into psychology. As ridiculous as this sounds, in some ways it makes more sense than Dunn's ideas about abject deception.

Sadly Dunn's analysis falls as flat as his predecessors that tried to explain Bentwaters as a lighthouse beacon and rabbit holes. Robert Hastings doing his part to bolt the final nail in the coffin effectively debunking these ideas with his interviews with air traffic controllers that tracked the UFO on radar and a guard posted at the weapons storage area (on the other side of Rendelsham forest from where Halt's team was) who also saw the lighted object in the trees.

The truth is that as witnesses, these men would be considered highly credible in a court of law. A blanket dismissal of their testimony by Dunn, is not useful in determining what really happened that night. This type of religiously induced irrationalism is common amongst CSICOP style debunkers. Their objectivity is ruined in the eyes of neutral parties examining their claims when they treat all different elements of the paranormal, or subjects unknown to science, with an equal degree of rejection, regardless of circumstance.
 
Um, I thought 'exemplary' was a good word! I guess the question is, would you have? You've decided to pick one answer among many pretty quickly and leave out considerable witness testimony. You asked, Jose responded with a link. You looked at it and said, "OK. I'm done." At least it doesn't sound like you've given this much time. I really recommend 'Left at East Gate' as a book that sums up the issues better than I can. That is, if you can spare the time.



UFO Hunters? I think you will find that this show is not held in the highest regard here and should probably not be used in a citation. It's like relying on the National Enquirer. Given your propensity to dismiss witness testimony out of hand, I would have thought you would place UFO Hunters in the same category. I think Jose would agree with this, too. And yes, we can all depend on Jose ridiculing nearly anything that comes up. If it doesn't jump up and bite him in the ass and require stitches, it does not exist, period. I hasten to add that his is a valid point of view and he is, indeed, a respected (and needed) member of the -uh- cast.

I hope you will forgive the rest of us for continuing to investigate and discuss this most intriguing case. Perhaps it's just a lighthouse. yes, that's it, a lighthouse. Or not.

-no, I cannot spare the time
- that edition of UFO Hunters was the only one I saw, it, and they, suck (my point was more that I did spend some time on the incident, I frankly don't remember what their conclusion was).
-Jose sounds like my kind of guy, although I do not think he was ridculing anything or anyone when he posted the link.
-You can bet that my opinion on Bentwaters is not my opinion of the members of the forum. I respect all that I have encountered and hope you all do research your chosen topics with passion and conviction. I will look to you all when you find the answers. I do not have that kind of time but I thoroughly enjoy the material, the banter and the varying opinions.
Peace,
B
 
If I had spent 10 years researching this for myself and came up with the same conclusion would would you have responded that my search for the truth was exemplary?

Instead you spent an hour researching sites on the net. Hardly groundbreaking or in any way thorough.

I have read enough web articles and seen the UFO Hunters program on Rendlesham to know that the skeptics' summary just about summed it up the way I saw it. Even one of our fellow Paracasters who appears to be a veteran in our forums and posted the link appears to believe the same thing.

Are you kidding me? UFO Hunters??? You base part of your opinion on that show??? A show that has been universally shit canned on these forums and by the most credible of researchers and investigators in the field. Mate you just stepped into the UFO field and trod in a pile of extra terrestrial excrement!!!

There are so many mysteries out there and no one has time to thoroughly research all. I will have to trust someone's opinions on each matter so I don't spin my wheels.

Yeah like Bill Birnes. I wouldn't trust that guys opinion as far as i could snort him out of my left nostril!!!

As far as ready made solutions, anyone who has used the research presented by others and have not done the field investigations themselves, are using other's ready made solutions.

So instead you use the research presented by Jose Collado and some skeptoid magazine as your TRUSTED source of information. (somewhat hypocritical)

And whether you put a significant amount of time and effort in and come up with an incomplete solution, or, if you put in much less effort to get an incomplete solution, the result is the same. In this case, I don't mind so much taking the easy way out. It leaves me time and energy to grapple with other things I am not quite sure about but am interested in.

..showing that your mind was made up before you even did any research into the matter.
 
Instead you spent an hour researching sites on the net. Hardly groundbreaking or in any way thorough. [\QUOTE]

-no, I spent an hour looking for pictures in response to someone posting that there was a link that, I assumed, from the context of their post, had pictures, trace evidence and eyewitnesses. I had spent several hours of reading up everything that the first couple of pages that Google brought me when searching on it ove rthe last 18 months as time allowed. Most of it was pro-ufo. Way too many inconsistencies across the statements and viewpoints.



Are you kidding me? UFO Hunters??? You base part of your opinion on that show??? A show that has been universally shit canned on these forums and by the most credible of researchers and investigators in the field. Mate you just stepped into the UFO field and trod in a pile of extra terrestrial excrement!!! [\QUOTE]

No, see my post RE UFO hunters. I never saw it or knew of anyone's opinion of it until I saw this episode. Pretty Bad. It encapsulated all that is wrong with the current state of the UFO field. I juast added it to the pile of places I looked. There were websites that were just as bad when I Googled the topic.



Yeah like Bill Birnes. I wouldn't trust that guys opinion as far as i could snort him out of my left nostril!!![\QUOTE]

That gaggle will be doing a reality show on the next hot topic. They don't give a rats ass about the topic. They are catering to the sheep.



So instead you use the research presented by Jose Collado and some skeptoid magazine as your TRUSTED source of information. (somewhat hypocritical) [\QUOTE]

No, I pointed out there were others who felt somewhat the same as I. I read enough material over the last year and a half after I got turned on to the Paracast, on Bentwaters to form an opinion. I just became active in the forums recently. I do not wholly trust any source of information unless it involves material proof. If it does not have material proof, it does not mean I do not believe it. In this case, physical evidence that could still be seen today (not conflicting reports of what a guy said about some readings) would help.


..showing that your mind was made up before you even did any research into the matter.

My hard and fast conclusion is in no way a reflection of how I viewed the case before I started reading about it. But in "separating the signal from the noise" in my own mind, I feel it is important to avoid the endless "what if" and "keep your mind open" game that keeps us in a state of uncertainty. I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to dig deeper into an issue when it has become clear to me that it is a dead end.

There are still too many episodes that are not closed in my mind that deserve more energy than this one.

I have two virtual shelves. One has the pile of dead cases on it, the other has the pile of cases I am still very interested in. To get to those hot cases, I have to let go of those that take up valuable time and only have conjecture to rely on.

Peace,
B
 
There are so many mysteries out there and no one has time to thoroughly research all.

I've been studying this stuff since I was about 10. I'm 51 now. I've located a lot more puzzle pieces, but am nowhere closer to any kind of answer.

May we all come upon the truth in our lifetime and may it be a good truth.

I sincerely think that unless the truth is made known to us, we aren't going to see it any time soon. Actually, we have facts, we just don't have explanations.

Even if the Government (any government, pick your favorite) came out and told us what they know, and maybe even showed us some physical evidence, it won't answer any questions, and probably raise more!

A real good place to start learning the real facts on this stuff is right here. Listen to the podcasts. I just recently found this podcast and have downloaded every episode and have been listening to the old shows. As their motto is "separating signal from noise", Gene and David do a really fine job presenting just the good stuff, while letting everyone know who to avoid. David picks really good questions for exposing BS, like asking how someone was able to sit for 6 hours on a UFO and not use the bathroom. :p

So just keep an open mind and keep searching. Eventually the "truth" comes to you in dribs and drabs. Then you have to assemble that (batteries not included) into some kind of framework. And then the picture gets even weirder.

But keep in mind that you will learn things that will likely change your worldview, and maybe not in a good way. What we think our reality is, isn't. And I'm not so sure we can understand the "truth".
 
[FONT=&quot]Brado.
Sorry but it appears that your mind was made up before you even attempted to do any research into the Rendlesham Forest incident.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If it wasn't you would have considered Schuyler's advice and read Peter Robbins book "Left at east Gate" and listened thoroughly to the two superb Paracast episodes that include the interviews with Peter Robbins and John Burroughs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You also seem quite quick to dismiss, out of hand, the witness testimonies and accept the skeptoid version that it was a lighthouse. And unless there was some physical trace evidence presented somewhere, the first hand accounts of the people who were there, are pure fiction.
In other words you searched for a debunking theory that matched your own, found it, and now that's all you need, case closed.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You based your conclusion on one forum member's opinion and the fact that you couldn't find much in the way of pictures while searching the net not to mention you saw one episode of UFO Hunters (admitting that it was tripe) and now it's time to wrap it up! At least have the courtesy of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]spending some time on the subject and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]doing some research before coming on to the forums and telling us that, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]yes i don't have time to spend looking into the matter properly[/FONT][FONT=&quot] but I believe it to be pretty much all bunk and so i'll accept the opinions of Jose Collado, Bill Birnes et al instead.
[/FONT]You are ,of course, entitled to your opinion and agreeing or disagreeing with anybody on these forums is your right.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
A lot that follows is not common knowledge-

Image hosting, free photo sharing video sharing at Photobucket ... ymbols.png

James Archer, alias James Penniston, met with Dot Street and Brenda Butler, authors of SKY CRASH. Archer told them that he and J. Burroughs drove out to investigate lights in the forest. They abandoned the jeep on the side of a logging road because of potholes and ruts and walked over two hundred feet into the forest. Archer said he saw a triangular thing that stood on three legs. He was asked if he saw anyone in the craft. Archer replied “I didn’t see any aliens. But there definitely was something in it...the shape did not look human. Maybe there were like robots”. Then it began to move around the forest, just above the ground level. They could follow it by walking and keeping up”It displayed amazing maneuverability dodging in and out of trees. And it made no sound at all. It was like nothing man-made.”

Dec.25/26 1980
In the electromagnetic force field, Penniston and Burroughs encountered “air filled with electricity”. It was difficult to walk or move. Everything seemed to be slowing down. Burroughs said, “It was like a weird feeling, like everything seemed slower then you were actually doing and stuff.” Penniston said,” the nearer we got to that thing, the more uneasy I felt. It was as if was moving in slow motion... what seemed like hours, was only a few moments.” There was no sound: while the craft sat there; while the craft maneuvered through the trees of the forest: while the craft took off and disappeared “in a blink of an eye”. Both Penniston and Burroughs were left dazed and confused. Penniston remarked, “When the craft was gone, everything was like normal again.” When it was happening, everything seemed to go slower and felt different. When they returned that morning, they saw physical evidence left by the craft: Damage and burns to the trees and three depressions in the hardened ground.

Burroughs wrote “I understand it is a tough subject to address but it is what it is. Time was involved and how or what caused it? Penniston did not have time to do what he said he did unless all of us were in some kind of different dimension. 2 of the 3 felt it was there and gone only Jim said it took 45 min. And the night Halt was out there and I was out in the open field getting close to whatever it was there was some missing time. IE I got very close to something and then it was gone and I have no Idea what happened in between. We just could not believe what happened. And we didn’t talk about time!!!”

Penniston’s and Burrough’s accounts differed not to mention Cabansag’s. Burroughs needed approval from the USAF on what areas he cannot discuss. Penniston had not mentioned his suspicion of a robot, and may have been silenced about seeing anything inside the craft. Cabansag said Burroughs jumped on the craft to subdue it but Burroughs denies it. Something flew into Rendlesham Forest on Boxing Day and shortly afterwards out of it. It was confirmed by someone in the high security tower in Bentwaters. It was ‘not man-made’.

Penniston’s words in an interview

“triangular in shape. The top portion is producing mainly white light which encompasses most of the upper section of the craft. A small amount of white light is appearing from what appears to be the bottom of the craft. At the left side is a bluish light. And on the other side is red. The lights seem to be molded as part of the exterior of the structure.”

." You got to remember, that’s the way I wrote it that night. It might not make sense in the sentence structure. The light seemed to be molded as if part of the exterior of the structure, smooth, slowly fading into the rest of the outside of the structure, gradually molding into the fabric of the craft."

“Yes, that is probably the most interesting part of it. I did draw them into my notebook. That was part of the 360 (degree examination) we were doing on the investigation because it was not a downed aircraft at that point, but we knew we had something out of the ordinary. You don't mind if I look at my notes, do you? 'On this smooth exterior shell, there is writing of some kind. I'm not sure what it is. Size 3-inch lettering. may be symbols that stretch for a length of 2 feet. Maybe a little more.”

“The feeling after I touched these symbols, I would describe them as like etched or engraved, like a diamond cut on glass. That was the feeling of these. I guess etching would be the best way to describe it.”

“Well, I think the fabric or the shell was -- I guess the best description would be a very smooth opaque, like black glass .even though at a distance, it appeared metallic. It made no sense, once I was up there (close to it) that it was more like black glass. I'm not sure -- I was pretty confused at that point.”

“Right, it was not paint or anything like that. One was triangular. That was in the center. That had three circles around it, or rather, circular objects (two small solid black
circles and triangle all inside a circumscribing circle).”

“No. But I did have a sensation. The fabric of the craft was warmer than the air temperature. The air temperature that night was around 31 or 32 Fahrenheit. The craft was quite a bit warmer.”

“Well, I had no problem going around the craft and doing the 360- degree looking at it. But after I did touch the actual symbols and that on the exterior of the craft, that's when it started to -- I backed away. I backed away from it because the light was starting to get brighter. There still was absolutely no sound. That is probably the most incredible part of this. There was absolutely no sound from this craft.”

“White. You know, there is no doubt that the craft was mechanical, or ship or whatever you want to call it. But there is also no doubt in my mind that it was under intelligent
control because the craft lifted off the ground.”

“At that point, I thought it was on fixed legs, the craft. But when it lifted off the ground, there was no legs on it, so I don't know how it was sitting on the ground. It lifted up a few
feet, sort of went through the woods maybe 25 or 30 meters, hovered momentarily, then lifted up to about 250 feet above the top of the trees and then it was literally in the blink of an eye, gone at that point.”

“Well, immediately next to me at 10 feet, yes. We, of course, we had another one back about 100 meters and there were others back at a logging road. Of course, there were several people at the East Gate. And all of this was observed from Bentwaters, too.”

“Yeah, we kept a very sanitized -- we reported it to our Security Shift Commander, I think it was Captain Mike Verrano at the time. And we were assured by then the senior officer at Bentwaters that this information would not go outside the United
States channels.”

“I did ask specifically that of Col. Halt. And his response was pretty much, 'Well, don't worry about it. We're treating it as TOP SECRET information right now.”

“So, when he said that to me, that tells me that it's not going to leave U. S. channels.”

“Oh, he was fully briefed.”

"I touched the symbols, and I could feel the shapes as if they were inscribed or etched or engraved, like a diamond cut on glass".

Cabansag sent a letter to Larry Warren:

"I was out in the forest with Burroughs, Penniston and____ on the first night. I worked C Flight and remember you from shift changes. I liked your book and learned some things about the base that I only suspected. We got debriefed for hours also! And I know we got injections … I think now more than ever we were not supposed to remember certain things. … ____ was missing, but … we didn't know until later that he was lost or taken. I think they got him back, snapped him out and sent him home, like a lot of other guys. We were … scared, Burroughs drew his weapon on it (the triangular shaped craft they encountered) and we went blank. Someone was inside that damned thing, you could feel it. The UFO did come back the next two nights so you must have been on D Flight. Rumors? Bullshit. No one was talking. … But it was not from Earth."

Dec. 27/28 1980
Chasing lights in Rendlesham Forest

John Burroughs writes, “OK. Bustinza and I were running together and he fell down and I kept running. As I was getting close to it, all of a sudden it was gone and I was just standing in the field. I don’t know what happened. Bustinza told me he was knocked down and held down. Afterwards, he stated he could not stand up until whatever it was, was gone and I was standing alone in the field. Halt’s party was behind us several hundred yards. Halt was the one who stated down the line that I was on top of something.. Bustinza said that I disappeared into it. I have no idea what happened. That is why I went under hypnosis. I do not know or remember what happened once I got close to it...We both could see it and it was white, yellow, red and blue”.

Burroughs writes, “As far as how high up (the craft were) not sure. Yes I remember the different color lights. There was a blue light over Bentwaters and one out over the coast. But the one I saw first was the one that shot down at us which is the one I think put a beam of light at Halts feet. There was radio traffic that something was coming at us then it shot down at us in the clearing past us and the light-alls making them go on and off and through a pickup truck window and back up into the sky. So when I said there were 2 there may have been 3.”

In the CNN Piece, MSgt Ball stated he believed he saw something inside the Blue lights that could be some kind of life form..

This is what I think happened Dec.26, 1980.
1. There were four airmen who went out into the forest to investigate the lights.
2. The electro-magnetic field force made bodily movement difficult in the area.
3. A gravitational field force created a time disturbance - a slow down of time that affected human minds and movement.
4. All four airmen experienced a time loss. One of the men drifted away from the group and got lost in the forest.
5. John Burroughs did not try to prevent the triangular craft from leaving. He was in the forest on Halt’s night and may have jumped on a small ball of light flying through the forest and tried to contain its movement. He was thrown off.
6. Burroughs and Penniston do not believe the craft was of alien origin.
7. Due to their proximity to the craft, both men were open to subliminal suggestions coming from within the craft.
8. Both men had more than one session of hypnosis.
9. Both Burroughs and Penniston will remember bits and pieces and the affects and dimmed perceptions recalled for the rest of their lives. It was a night to remember.

Some observations:
Cabansag and Burroughs claimed they spent very little time near the craft... Penniston said he walked around the craft taking 36 pictures. He discovered etchings on the craft’s surface and made copies in his notebook. He felt they were only out there 45 minutes. When they got back, it was determined they spent nearly three hours in the forest... Later they said they were following the craft through the woods and pursuing it. Penniston timed the movement of the craft maneuvering through the woods at a speed of less than one second a foot...
.
 
Back
Top