Rendlesham Forest incident solved?

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.

Lesley wrote:

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.

I do agree with the above statement, however, there are many inconsistencies to the original telling of what happened. I cannot remember the name of the thread that had the link to the site which questioned the original encounter. It brought up many good points that needed answers.

I do not think it was burning fertilizer either, but this case really does need a good looking at from a more skeptical point of view.

kidflash2008 wrote:

I do not think it was burning fertilizer either, but this case really does need a good looking at from a more skeptical point of view.

I got your skeptical right . . .

Yup, and I hit it from that angle. If I recall after Jim Penniston touched the craft and made his observations, it moved and emitted a bright light etc, which was why they subsequently hit the ground. I'm not sure that this is a difference in story, just different parts of the same time line.

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.

I did notice in the documentary "I Know What I Saw" that the notebook Sgt Penniston showed had yellowing pages. The one with the "writing" was whiter than the other pages. The main problem of his story is that the original documents released state nothing about the writing he allegedly saw. It seems this and other parts may be embellished.

I also think the colonel saw the lighthouse during the fog. If one pays attention to the audio, it does seem like the "lights" are visible, then gone, then visible like the lighthouse beacon.

This case may actually have a down to earth explanation to it. Unfortunately, many consider this case on of the best. If this turns out to be a mundane or embellished story, it will hurt ufology.

As I recall, UFO Hunters did a pretty good job of debunking the lighthouse theory. If I remember right, the lighthouse wasn't even visible from where the Colonel saw the light.

The lighthouse itself may not be visible, but the light at night would of carried through the fog. It is a possible explanation, and with more and more holes being found, I would not put this in the top ten case. I also think they went out looking for UFOs and were willing to interpret what they saw as a UFO.

Take a good look at the notebook when the documentary "I Know What I Saw" airs again. It is much whiter than the other pages. The writing has been in question, so I made it a point to check it out.

Also, why isn't it in the original reports?

I had it on tape and just finished watching. I did look for the yellow pages you described and what I noticed was that he would show a page of the notebook that would appear white and when he turned the page the back of the same page appeared more yellow and the one next to it more white. It may have been lighting. Not that I am saying he wrote those pages at the time. I have noticed that many people that have actually experienced something strange feel the need to manufacture some sort of proof because they think they won't be believed otherwise.

This is what I found at the Rendlesham site regarding the UFO Hunters episode and the part about lighthouse:

Quote :

Finally, in an effort to put the lighthouse theory to rest the team spoke to Keith Seaman, the lighthouse keeper: "If we look at the lighthouse behind us, we can see it has a big piece of metal behind it, pointing in the direction of Rendlesham...
"Albeit the intensity of the light was greater then in 1980 than it is now, the light still would not have shone directly through the trees."
Knowing the area well myself, I can attest that Keith is correct, only the ‘UFO hunters’ blew his statement out of proportion. They took it to mean that the lighthouse is ‘not visible’ from Rendlesham forest what-so-ever – I know for a fact it is.
It may not “sweep through the trees”, but it is visible to some extent.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/

I actually do think they saw an unknown object at the time. However, I do think much has been embellished on the story to make it seem either more exciting. I do wish they did not do this, as skeptics and debunkers trash all sightings when major errors pop up in the popular cases.

The main problem with this story is Sgt Penniston in the reports at the time states he was closest at 150 feet. He never touched it as he now states in interviews. I also think he made up the writing.

I agree they want to be believed and that it can be frustrating when someone thinks one is crazy or making it up. However, embellishing a story is not in the best interest of ufology.

The colonel may have seen an unknown object the second day. The problem is they were all ready to see something. That part is never dealt with when dealing with the second day sightings. It may seem small to some, but I am one to really think about these cases. Mostly it is for the better of the case, and other times it is to the detriment of the case.

I still say they saw an unknown object, however, I do think this story has been embellished enough to lose credibility.

kidflash2008 wrote:

I also think the colonel saw the lighthouse during the fog. If one pays attention to the audio, it does seem like the "lights" are visible, then gone, then visible like the lighthouse beacon.

I re examined this taking in to consideration the altitude of the lighthouse, the direction of the forest, the distance between the two, and the SHIELD on the back side of the lighthouse that blocks light from shining inland on the towns folks.

The town and the shield and the forest are not lined up, so it is possible that as the beacon came around it would illuminate the sky to the South of their position and to the W - NW of the lighthouse towards the south end of the forest. Given the high humidity of the night air on the ocean front the night sky would definitely be slightly illuminated even if there was no real fog at ground level.

As the beacon comes round and is blocked on the North side by the protective shield the light will appear to fade in quickly and then disappear suddenly. This would also make the light appear only in one geographic area and not "make sharp turns" or "have red and yellow" colors as stated on the tape, unless this was color reflected from the lighthouse tower paint etc.

By the time they entered the field they had an almost unobstructed view in the direction of the lighthouse, not blacked by near tree line. Yet there is no mention of the lighthouse beacon as a reference in the testimonies.

If fog was to blame for the illumination as prescribed then it would be readily evident in the field at the farm house.

This beacon would also happen at a regular interval. I find it hard to believe that trained military personnel wouldn't realize this timing.




.

Maybe I am wrong about the lighthouse aspect of this case. However, one has to realize they went out the second day with flying saucers on their minds. I am not saying they didn't see one, but researchers tend to not take that into consideration.

While I do believe an unknown object was seen on the first day, the embellishments of those involved taint this case. It should not get the attention it does. It makes the debunkers and skeptics mouths water.

One thing I've been thinking that would help is a time line of the whole thing from the first report to the end of the second night, with markers showing the appr dates and times of the participants.

A map of the forest, field, castings and lighthouse locations would also be beneficial in order to get some scale of it all.

A light house can be seen for 10 - 20 miles out to sea but not 1 mile across land?

You bring up a couple of excellent ideas, Fox. The map of the sighting areas and where the SPs went would be very helpful.

Also, the lighthouse would be seen for way more than a mile. One can see spotlights for tens of miles from their point of origin, why not lighthouses.

As I have stated before, I don't think this case is strong enough to be made into one of the top ten cases.