That is the claim made by a driver of a lorry:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1211350/Britains-famous-UFO-burning-lorry-packed-stolen-fertiliser-says-driver.html

The airmen who approached said object claimed to have touched it. I did read on one site that the claim of touching and walking up to the solid object was not made until much later. (I will be searching for that article as it came from a skeptic site.)

I do not know why the airmen would make up such a claim as they have not made any money off the incident that I know of.

I didn't take Bill Birne's investigation at face value either, so I spent considerable time checking the path to the light house, the distances and the elevations between the base guard post, the miniature forest, the farm house\field key points and the lighthouse beacon\reflector.

Given my understanding of this topography and the witnesses accounts, their reputations and cost of coming forward, I find this account doesn't come close to carrying the weight of testimony. His story doesn't hold up to common sense, and if there was any type of fertilizer on fire, accelerant or not, there would have also been considerable smoke and stench lingering in the area entire beneath the treeline.

This whole area is very small, so you can't convince me that multiple groups of trained military personnel wouldn't be able to ascertain a burning wagon across 2 consecutive days and nights.


.

Interesting story, why he waited 29 years is curious, also, the amount of witnesses, just listen to the taped audio of the event, when they see the Lights, there is genuine amazement. Besides, smelling burning fertilizer would not be forgotten, and I never even heard that anywhere in the various accounts of this, Strange smells etc.
I consider Rendelsham Forest to be one of the most compelling stories I've ever heard.

This is from Wikipedia:
"Jim Penniston and John Burroughs went to investigate the craft together. However, there is a major inconsistency in separate interviews of Jim Penniston and John Burroughs. In an interview with Larry King on November 9, 2007, Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees". The inteviews with Jim Penniston and John Burroughs have subsequently been made available on Youtube.[22][23]"

COL (ret) Halt was a career officer, I doubt seriously he would have jeopardized his career over a burning cart of stolen fertilizer.
Marksbrother

Probably one of the stupidest debunkery attempts of a ufo incident EVER! I mean really, trained military guys can't tell a smokey, smelly fire from a ufo? As Mulder said, it just doesn't make sense.

Added to that, the local police were called out. I think they would have been able to locate a burning car don't you ?

Here is an article on the incident by a skeptic:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

There is lots of information to digest, and one interesting thing is the apparent changing of Penniston's story:

" 2. The only witness to claim he saw a mechanical object was Penniston. The others have only ever described seeing lights. During the incident, Penniston estimated that he got no closer than about 50 metres to the object and that every time he tried to approach it, it moved ahead of him. This was relayed at the time by radio to his supervisor, Master Sergeant Chandler, who confirms it in his own statement. There was no mention at the time of the much closer and extended encounter that Penniston has since claimed (see Point 4).

" 4. In more recent television interviews Penniston has exhibited a notebook in which he claims he made real-time notes and sketches of a landed craft for about 45 minutes (see picture below). However, there are serious problems with this claim. For one thing, the date in the notebook is December 27 and the starting time is noted as 12:20 (presumably meaning 00:20). This, as we know, does not accord with the established date and time. Burroughs, who was within a few yards of him throughout the incident and saw no craft, told me in an email on 2006 March 22: “Penniston was not keeping a notebook as it went down”. In a further email dated 2008 January 17 Burroughs emphasized: “Penniston did not have time to make any sketches in a note book while this was going on and did not walk around it for 45 min.” So what are we to make of Penniston’s claims?"

There is also a lot of information about Penniston's notebook.

I have just read the personal statement Sgt Penniston gave at the time of the UFO sighting. At no time does he say he touched it, as he claims he did not get closer than 50 meters (150 feet).

There are a lot of inconsistencies to this sighting. I do not doubt they saw something unusual, but I do think they later embellished the story to make it more mysterious than what actually happened.

Hi all ,
Peter Turtill is a known attention seeker here in the UK .

If the people that we trust with our safety cannot tell the difference between a burning truck and a UFO then we all have something to worry about !

It does sound like embellishment. Also, I find it hard to believe that a commander, experiencing radio difficulties or not, would wonder so far away from the rest of the crew as to be able to say that he touched a craft and examined over a long period of time.

While investigating an unknown at night with a measure of uncertainty and hysteria, it's just unbelievable to me that he was exercising this autonomy. The buddy system is in place for a reason.

.

One thing that cannot be overlooked, is the fact that these Enlisted Military personnel would have been subjected to an intense "debriefing". While COL Halt (ret) claims to have never been debriefed over the incident? It would have been SOP for the appropriate agency to move in and take charge of the witnesses. The timeline of events is indicative of when and how the Covering stories began.
It is the Roswell for the UK. and Just like the US Roswell, the stories have become so embellished, as to prevent any semblance of order revealing truth.
I remember reading somewhere, I cant find it now, that the witnesses were taken into an underground Facility, and debriefed. Something about an ET presence there also. And why have there been multiple sightings reported through the years of this particular part of England? Curious that.
Marksbrother

If Sgt Penniston was debriefed and told to keep quiet, why has he not mentioned that? He did tell of everything else, and more much later. Why not tell of any government coercion or threats?

I bring up the article to show there are some inconsistencies with this case. The original report does show an unknown type object, but the information of touching and writing down symbols was told much later after the fact. Why would he leave that vital information out of a report of the incident?

I also think there should be more tough questions asked about cases. They ask very tough questions of the Hill case, and that only strengthens it.

In this case I do believe they saw an unknown craft and responded accordingly. What they saw is a mystery, but it does not help that information has been embellished. This case is not very strong after learning of the added embellishments.

I agree Kid, it is unclear as to why any of these witnesses would embellish.
Larry Warren co-wrote a Book about the incident that was well documented and contains solid, credible corroboration. These four men, are the ONLY witnesses to not remain silent. Dont forget there were others, who have never talked. Why? only they know. I have my suspicions. Interesting investigation about the depressions made in the Ground, where the alleged craft landed, also the radioactive testing that was done. Why would they do that? The real meat of this incident needs to be looked at. Not the embellished stories of Electricity in the air as they neared the Craft, or the sense of time displacement, or that the statement by Borroughs, I believe, that when the craft wobbled up and away, he saw six inch High lettering on it, that looked familiar, but he doesnt know why. Whether these witnesses told immediately all they knew, or had time to gather and compose their thoughts, is not relevant. What they saw, they believe was real. That is a commonly and unanimously stated fact. It wasnt that they were unsure, Maybe it was fog or clouds or smoke, No, they all saw a craft, Penniston even drew accurate pictures of it. I guess it always boils down to what someone is willing to believe without evidence. I believe the accounts of this incident are real. Given the official nature of the Military. Its unusual that we heard anything at all, that is the only suspect thing to me. Certain attempts at covering up things can be made by releasing some truth then obfucating the heck out of it, with outrageous embellishments. Perhaps there are more forces at work here, that we do not even have a clue about. Debriefing is often classified in and of itself, so it wouldnt be authorized to acknowledge that. The scare tactics they use would prevent even the bravest person from giving in and talking about it. Maybe that is what we're seeing.
Marksbrother

I definitely agree something strange happened at Rendlesham Forest. I also believe there are many men who did not wish to come forward at the risk of their military careers. (A UFO sighting may mean an officer will not pin on the next rank.)

My problem with this case is the same as with the Walton case: There is something that has been done to taint an otherwise excellent encounter. (The Walton case problem is the failed lie detector test that was covered up. I don't think that lie detector tests tell the whole story, but the researchers who tried to cover up the failed test basically tainted the whole case which is a shame.)

Debunkers love when these types of inconsistencies come up as they use them to discredit the whole case. The sad fact is there are hundreds of great cases that do not have any such inconsistencies that are never mentioned by either side. I keep hearing some claim the Rendlesham Forest case is one of the best and I disagree with that.