Rendlesham (again)

[boomerang]

I keep returning to the Rendlesham incident because it is an undeniably high strangeness incident that is still chronologically and historically in our backyard, so to speak. I can easily imagine researchers 30 years from now wistfully shaking their heads and bemoaning the fact that more serious research on Rendlesham was not done while witnesses were still alive.

But having said that--I'm not sure what should be done as the clock ticks away. As is typical, evidence consists pretty much of a cast of characters and a smattering of tantalizing but sketchy paperwork. Whatever trace evidence the forest itself may have held is probably long gone.

What about medical records of key witnesses? They are almost certainly as unavailable now as they were in 1980.

Listening to an interview of Charles Halt the other day left me with the usual set of mixed feelings. He begins the disclosure part of his narrative with an expression of extreme reluctance to make public his involvement. He then proceeded to appear on "Unsolved Mysteries" at which point his story went rather viral. His real time audio tape is fascinating. But is it too neatly packaged? Hard to say. He claims to have been spared the trauma of hostile debriefing by virtue of his rank. Reasonable?

 

[Ezechiel]

What fascinates me in this story are the symbols on the landed craft (noted by Halt I think)

... The last of which matches a previous occurence

While we do not pretend to have a translation for these symbols(though we may have some glimmerings of possible meanings), their appearance and style brought to mind another report that included a landed object(as this one seems to have been) that was small enough to look down at while standing, and on which glyphs were noted and recorded by the witnesses...only this report is from the U.K. in the year 1980, 200 years and 6,000 miles away. It is of an extraordinary event that took place at USAF occupied RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk, England and was recorded primarily by eyewitness Lt. Col. Charles I. Halt. It is one of the most well-known and solid UFO cases of all time, containing reports of over 80 military personnel as eyewitnesses and includes sketches, plaster casts, Geiger-readings of the landing area, and copious notes and documents of the internal investigation. It is sometimes referred to as "Britain's Roswell," and is formally known as the Rendlesham Forest Incident.

NCSI Online: Ufology Part II: A Brief History

Notice the ports on the ufo with the hole patterns

Let's have some fun and match them with the burn mark patterns of the falcon lake victim:

UFO FYI: UFOs One Year at a Time: 1967

Must be a pattern somewhere

 

[Randall]

I keep returning to the Rendlesham incident because it is an undeniably high strangeness incident that is still chronologically and historically in our backyard, so to speak ...

Agreed ... There seems to be too much going on with this case to write it off as a hoax by a base policeman on a gullible officer who was wandering aimlessly around the forest with a tape recorder chasing lighthouse beams.

 

[chikane]

What fascinates me in this story are the symbols on the landed craft (noted by Halt I think)

that was by James Penniston

 

[boomerang]

The recurrence of strange symbols in connection with ufos should be a meaningful clue. But the mere fact that they are so often reported is as enigmatic as most everything else.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I like symbols in these kinds of cases, a lot. I'm speaking from a folklore perspective, but they're very much like the sightings of strange writings and documents that people have been telling stories about for several thousand years. The weakness in the narrative for the UFO cases, though, comes from the fact that the very concept of writing on crafts has two distinct problems.

Who decided that markings on a craft have to be writing? Why couldn't they just as easily be artifacts left by the manufacturing process of the craft? Why couldn't they be different kinds of power outlets, maybe for recharging different components of a craft? Why couldn't they be literally anything that has nothing to do with language or communication? Why would a craft, of any kind, have so much information scrawled all over it? Do the beings in the craft just have the least efficient language in the universe, so much so that it changes from craft to craft? That brings us to the second problem.

Why are the writings always so different? Even the examples shown in this thread aren't even vaguely similar. I guess there is a kind of triangle in both instances, but that's a pretty basic form. Two complex forms would have to be exactly matching in order for similarity to matter. Again, there is still the problem of all the writing ona craft in the first place -- do these creatures not have at least radio technology -- whose reading the spacecraft and for what pragmatic reason?

It would make more sense for the markings to be some kind of machining artifact, or some kind of technical hardware that is used for something or other, as change over the years could reflect a change in the beings' own advancing technology over time.

Nobody even seems to vaguely consider the idea that these types of design wouldn't be language. It's a pretty big assumption, and it really weakens the overall narrative.

Obviously from a "research" standpoint, both ideas are fundamentally stupid and unreasonable. There's no reason to assume the marking represent anything, one way or the other. Does anyone have a viable reason for why the markings in these cases, especially these few, would be language?

George

Edit: I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm just saying it's silly to assume anything about the markings -- language, hardware, or anything else.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

You know, I've a lot of respect for Peter Robbins - a very well known Rendlesham investigator and I'm only posting to quote something I heard him say on a Jerry Pippin show, and I'm of course paraphrasing and this tickled me cos it is basically believing confused with knowing!

Pippin: Yes somepeople are explaining UFOs with theories such as the inter-dimensional theory, but I'm still putting my money on the ETH.

Peter: Yes, it is the ETH; those of us who've been researching for 30 years know it's the ETH.

Now, I don't know about you but it actually sounded like Peter was quite snooty, looking down at anyone who doesn't think all UFOs are explainable by the ETH. It's all very well thinking the ETH is the most likely explanation but to say that anyone who's studied UFOs for enough time can only conclude the ETH is the explanation. That is very conceited IMO.

Thoughts? (and I do actually like Peter and respect the work he has done on the Rendlesham case)

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@George - The writing, like other aspects to UFO sightings, may be specifically designed solely to confound us, as that seems to be the only common thing about them.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

goggsmackay, that's a pretty fun idea. Has anyone else legitimately offered that as an idea, or is that your own?

I don't want to hijack this thread, but it does give me an idea for another question in another thread. Thanks.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Those sketches always remind me ancient Sumerian text ? (who knows) and could these so called UFO be ancient human advancement of technology left in some time sequences program which is trigged by cycles of the moon and tides at times of the year. Who knows if they are some ancient solar powered devices? Especially with all those panels or plates?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@George - I'd read others state that certain aspects of Ufology/paranoramal seem to continually confound us. I put my own spin on it in that that might be the actual intention, not a by-product as such.
So for me it was an original idea but I'm sure it's occurred to countless others interested in the field.

 

[boomerang]

I suppose these things are regarded as symbols because they appear to witnesses to have no other function than that of symbolic or ornamental. But they could well be as functional as symbolic, or could represent some kind of mind/matter interface and so are both. Or, yes, they could as easily be just one more stage prop They could even exist only as falsely implanted memories.

Robbins is an articulate guy and I always enjoy his work. I'm a little surprised he would be so dogmatic as to wholeheartedly embrace the ET hypothesis. But--I have a theory that anyone studying ufology long enough may get cognitively "punchy", especially in public interviews. Perhaps he believes ETH on MWF and EDH on other days?? I couldn't much fault him.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

G'day boomerang ,
I agree mate in Robbins great work but the images could of been previously learning from the eyewitness mix messages of the data. How many of the eyewitness had any interest in the UFO subject prior to the events? Also movies like Close Encounters had been in the theatre's prior to the Bentwaters event. Did any of the eyewitness see that movie ? Subconscious the "Trickster" could have drawn on those images and sounds? I don't buy the internal interference of homemade event especially if you had know people who were serving that period was terrifying for those in fear of another land war in Western Europe and then a nuclear war. Russian Nuclear Subs cat and mouse incidents and also terrorism was very active in UK and in Europe and all the bases were on high alert. For example London , Birmingham and Bradford Race Riots were going on and anti-nuclear demonstrations plus Iranian incident in London all were causing constant checks on these bases especially joint US/British/NATO.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Go back and read the initial written reports by all of the witnesses. They are available online. In those written accounts, taken a short time after the incident, you read nothing fantastical. Rather just several accounts of some odd "lights" in the sky. There are no structured crafts, there is no mention of occupants, symbols or interaction with a physical object.

 

[boomerang]

Go back and read the initial written reports by all of the witnesses. They are available online. In those written accounts, taken a short time after the incident, you read nothing fantastical. Rather just several accounts of some odd "lights" in the sky. There are no structured crafts, there is no mention of occupants, symbols or interaction with a physical object.

Fair enough if true. But we are then left with an ugly sociological dilemma. Its the same old credible witness paradox. Why are a retired bird Colonel and other numerous people placed in positions of deadly serious responsibility sticking to the high strangeness aspects of their stories?

 

[withoutlimits09]

Something clearly out of the ordinary happened at Bentwaters. As far as Charles Halt is concerned, his story is air-tight. He did a great job of documenting his experience and there is additional evidence to back up his claims. However, Penniston and a few of the others are true wild cards. They seem to want to piggy back onto the story and embellish their own personal experience and inject themselves into the narrative in order to play a much larger role. I recently listened to Penniston in an archived interview with UFO Think Tank. There are several inconstancies with his story, in fact in this interview he contradicts some of his other testimony. I may actually sit down with my note pad and re-create the timeline and underline the inconsistencies with his account. I will then post this to these forums.

However, for a start read Penniston's original written account of the events. Note that he does not state he was alone with the "craft" he does not state anything about symbols, he mentions nothing about touching the object or even approaching it. In fact he clearly writes "THIS WAS THE CLOSEST POINT THAT I WAS NEAR THE OBJECT AT ANY POINT."

Really? Because on several documentaries, you claimed you touched the craft! Heck, you are even on the record as saying you were carrying a CAMERA!!! If so why do we have "Sketches" of the craft!

In the Omni interview Penniston says that the object was sitting in a clearing when he approached it.

“I had my notebook and camera while I was out there, so I began taking notes."

These are the sorts of problems that irk the hell out of me with this case.

 

[boomerang]

Withoutlimits, looks like you have a number of valid points. What seems so typical of Rendlesham in light of ufo history is its lasting and not altogether positive effect on cognitive and emotional stability of witnesses. Halt states flat out that Penniston and others were "meddled with" in debriefing. Given the seemingly "psychoactive" nature of the phenomenon, this may or may not account for morphing memories over time.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I'd like to jump in quickly and point out that one possible explanation for the evolving stories from the Bentwaters airmen, could be that they were simply reluctant to reveal the more fantastic elements of their accounts.

I think this is something that happens in UFO encounters a lot. Someone may report seeing a UFO to the police or whatever, but I think they often leave out any high strangeness aspects due to them being even weirder than just a UFO sighting. If I saw a UFO I might not want to tell the police that out popped Robbie the Robot spraying sleeping gas with munchkins as back up!

Just a thought - I really don't have an opinion on whether their stories have evolved in a false way, that is, that they are adding events for the 'theatre' of it all?

I certainly think something really strange happened at Rendlesham forest back then.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Well, Penniston testified he had a camera with him, rather than worry about looking like a lunatic, he could have snapped a few photos of the craft rather than stand around it for 40 minutes and crudely "sketch" what it looked like. As far as I am concerned, Rendelsham experienced a few odd lights that got the attention of several of the base security airmen, including Penniston. They went out and did some very preliminary investigations that included the visual sighting of lights in the sky, they promptly reported this. Days later, more odd lights returned, Halt went out into the field and had an actual encounter with something very odd. Only after that did the more insignificant players on the base start to embellish their experiences from the previous night. I think this is basically what this case boils down to. Halt is the only player in this case that has the proper evidence to back up what he experienced. Everyone else wrote their conclusions shortly after the first wave of experiences and in those written reports, none of them mention anything beyond illuminating lights and odd lights in the sky. Everything fantastical is added after this fact.

 

[Stan Pietrowicz]

googsmackay-

If you read Left At East Gate, you would know why Peter Robbins favors an ETH.
While visiting the UK with Larry Warren, he had a genuine UFO encounter in Rendlesham Forest.

PODCASTS: Behind the Paranormal with Paul and Ben Eno Achieve Radio
click on Jan. 30, 2011
Peter Robbins hour 1

Static beginning; then it clears up
Robbins describes his experience

WITHOUTLIMITS-09

Regarding eyewitnesses .initial accounts.Burroughs wrote his experience in long hand of what he remembered. He never mentioned that he also suffered amnesia. Penniston said he fudged his report because if he told the truth, it was career ending. Cabansag said he never typed the report he signed, because he didn’t know how to type. He said he signed it without reading it.A fourth member who went out with the others,turned up missing, some say abducted. He was found a few days later: undergone rehabilitation and immediately returned to the States, his identity and presence cancelled from all records. I don’t think you read any of this in the reports.

Boomerang-

When Halt was out in the forest he was accompanied by three other witnesses. There were also twenty other airmen in the woods observing them, including John Burroughs who had another unearthly experience, which again, caused amnesia. Halt wrote the document that was sent to the UK Minister of Defense that also included the event of the first sighting two days prior to his.

Ezechiel-

I wrote a thread on the RFI board regarding the symbols Penniston noted. The circles on the structure of a craft denote drones; the circle inside a craft denote robots. These were confirmed to me by my own experience and certain crop circles.

ProphetofOccam-

When Penniston touched the symbols he said he received a “download”. He said he was communicating from something from earth’s future... “It was US”..Afterwards his sleep was disturbed by ones and zeros.He was compelled to write them down in his notebook.After he did this,the compulsions ceased. He did not know that what he was writing was binary code .When Penniston was being debriefed no one asked him if he took any notes He took his photos to the base lab. The photos came back blank.