PDA

View Full Version : Rendlesham Forest incident - Britian's Roswell



calikid
12-02-2011, 06:10 AM
The Halt Memo, Sgt James Penniston's on site notes and more recent binary coded message, comments from MOD's Nick Pope.

No incident since Roswell has had so many witnesses and unanswered questions. What do you think?

calikid
12-02-2011, 02:56 PM
I found Sgt Penniston's original testimony about actually touching the craft, and his notes showing the symbols he copied down to be chilling and convincing.

What DID all those people see in that English forrest those nights?

Dragonfire
12-20-2011, 01:06 AM
The Rendlesham Forest incident which must be almost as big as the Roswell story in terms of what is on record and must certainly qualify as an "Extraordinary UFO Case".

It's a subject that has an incredible amount of credible witnesses on record and the whole weird nature of what happened.

So what was it?

Infrafred
12-21-2011, 06:25 PM
This is the one UFO Case that has convinced me that Alien visitation is Real.

Having recored his description of the Craft as he was actaully seeing it.

It was chilling!!

lux aurea in obscuro
01-23-2012, 02:44 PM
Good afternoon Dragonfire,


As nobody has came fourth so far offering to shine a light on the incident may I offer a suggestion. We can conclude that indeed the incident had taken place absolutely no argument. Over the space of several evenings radar sightings and distant lights from the forest being observed by many key witnesses. Having had such an effect the military personal organising a team to investigate which included the local police. The investigating team having requested permission to go off base and investigate in the forest classified as public common land which only shows just how serious this incident was taken and in military speak went all the way to the top.

You are indeed correct in saying that a mountain of evidence has resulted from this incident including recently de-classified document and a many TV shows. What tickles my fancy being the question why? Why pay so much interest to that area.

Middle Earth should I say middle England is awash with military bases in fact the area in question having many RAF bases both American and British. These bases not only operating expected aircraft but also listing centres with an array of radar and communication equipment. Myself wondering if this equipment has lured the as mentioned UFO/s into the area for further investigation? Or effected the craft/s in such a way it had been forced into a landing to ascertain what could be effecting their craft/s being able to safely adjust controls before resuming normal ET like duties.

Understanding they are drawn to and at times have effected/effect sensitive sites such as nuclear silos at times rendering our countries deterant off-line and useless. Could it be we even deliberately phased our radars knowing they could possibly effect these UFO's and put theory into practice owing to the amount of UFO activity.

If I were an ET buzzing around in my nice shiny craft I'd be sure to test out these new Earthling monitoring devices so as to ensure my cover is not blown and my detection remains impossible. Sometimes wondering if that in itself could be the reason for the majority of encounters witnessed because we have again 'upgraded' our detection abilities with radars and early warning stations, which in turn results in a fly by to ensure all remains unseen?

I will be looking at/for just now the drawings of the symbols recorded as being seen on the side of one of these craft as I would like to know if they are recorded or witnessed at any other location on any other such craft?


Kind regards

M

AdverseCamber
01-23-2012, 06:28 PM
As nobody has came fourth so far offering to shine a light on the incident may I offer a suggestion. We can conclude that indeed the incident had taken place absolutely no argument. Over the space of several evenings radar sightings and distant lights from the forest being observed by many key witnesses.

Radar, really?

This is news to me, what’s your source for this information?

lux aurea in obscuro
01-23-2012, 08:18 PM
Good evening AdverseCamber


Thanks for your enquiry I can confirm that the Rendlesham incident was caught on radar entering our air-space. The UFO was tracked then disappeared and again reappeared several times. I believe this and the fact fires were also reported in the forest to be of a major concern at the time. As if the craft in question was attempting to come in under cover ie below the altitude at which the radar is / was effective. During the time period we were in Britain constantly under threat of the Russians so drills were part of the norm and nothing in our air space left to chance. All I can say without getting into trouble being a family member was installing and setting up the new kit in the local area.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham8.htm

http://ufos.about.com/od/ufocrashes/p/rendlesham.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk
/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9140000/9140524.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9140000/9140524.stm)


I below post a small link I can however add that I am aware that around the time of the incident a major upgrade of equipment was being carried out. So much so testing equipment with a tin foil covered tennis ball could be picked up and monitored very sensitive kit. The kit being replaced and upgraded so that 3D tracking could be achieved from a monitor prior to which we were using 2D equipment on a scope.

Also to add that the equipment being so effective that many many UFO's were recorded and logged over British air space. Thousands of them and that's within a small time frame.


Kind regards

M

AdverseCamber
01-24-2012, 12:39 AM
Good evening AdverseCamber


Thanks for your enquiry I can confirm that the Rendlesham incident was caught on radar entering our air-space. The UFO was tracked then disappeared and again reappeared several times. I believe this and the fact fires were also reported in the forest to be of a major concern at the time. As if the craft in question was attempting to come in under cover ie below the altitude at which the radar is / was effective. During the time period we were in Britain constantly under threat of the Russians so drills were part of the norm and nothing in our air space left to chance. All I can say without getting into trouble being a family member was installing and setting up the new kit in the local area.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham8.htm

http://ufos.about.com/od/ufocrashes/p/rendlesham.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk
/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9140000/9140524.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9140000/9140524.stm)

Hello again M,

Yeah I thought so, it’s wrong.

In the link at about.com you provided the author reports hearsay as fact and then this is usually repeated ad infinitum across the internet. Ironically this is explained on the same site you provided a link to, Ian writes:


A source of misinformation

One source of misinformation about radar tracking of the Rendlesham UFO was the Strange But True TV programme broadcast on 1994 December 9th. This gave the impression that Mal Scurrah, a former radar operator at RAF Neatishead in Norfolk, had seen the Rendlesham object on radar. However, in the 1995 May/June issue of UFO Magazine (UK) Scurrah went on record as saying that his radar sighting, which took place during a training exercise, had happened in late October or early November 1980 and was not linked with the Rendlesham case.

Source (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham8.htm).
In 1983 Pam Titchmarsh (DS8/Ufo Desk) stated that there were no radar reports in reply to a FOIA from Ian Ridpath:


“No unidentified object was seen on any radar recordings during the period in question and that the News of the World article was inaccurate on this point”.
In 1994 Nick Pope (Again whilst manning UFO desk) responded to inquiries from Central TV in England:


“No unidentified object was seen on radar during the period in question”.
In 2003, Squadron Leader Derek Coumbe recalled for BBC Radio 4 that several calls had come through from Bentwaters asking them if they were seeing anything unusual in the Bentwaters and Woodbridge area.


“We scrutinized the radar time and time again completely, and kept a watch on it through the whole period when these phone calls were going on and nothing was seen. Nothing at all.”
All of the original/personal documentation confirming the above is available in the .pdf files that were declassified before being withdrawn as well as at the above link for Ian’s pages (.gifs). This was on the second night at the radar station at RAF Watton, the same one that the alleged witness Mal Scurrah worked at as a radar operator (the link you provided).

The BBC Suffolk link you provided mentions radar once and this is merely artistic license when setting the scene, “Security at two American Air bases - RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters, which held one of NATO's largest nuclear stockpiles, is as tight as usual. Radar screens sweep and blip.”

So when you wrote, “Over the space of several evenings radar sightings and distant lights from the forest being observed by many key witnesses” this was a conclusion you arrived at based on just the one inaccurate witness statement or are you aware of any relevant witnesses or documentation pertaining to this aspect?


I below post a small link I can however add that I am aware that around the time of the incident a major upgrade of equipment was being carried out. So much so testing equipment with a tin foil covered tennis ball could be picked up and monitored very sensitive kit. The kit being replaced and upgraded so that 3D tracking could be achieved from a monitor prior to which we were using 2D equipment on a scope.

Also to add that the equipment being so effective that many many UFO's were recorded and logged over British air space. Thousands of them and that's within a small time frame.

I’m afraid you’ve completely lost me here, which radar station are you alleging logged “thousands” of UFO's or are you implying the 'new' kit employed was more effective than the pre-existing fixed installations, or are you not talking about conventional radar at all?

lux aurea in obscuro
01-24-2012, 01:29 PM
Good afternoon AdverseCamber,


I have to give you credit for the confusion if only these incidents were so easily explained. Firstly allow me to defend the honour of this thread as well so we can all come to at least an logical conclusion based on facts not disinformation.

You mention Pam Titchmarsh DS8/UFO desk mentions no UFO reports on radar, however we are in 1983 talking about something still classified so I take it with a pinch of salt.

Also you mention in 1994 Nick Pope manning UFO desk responds to Central TV that no UFO was seen on radar during the period in question, Nick Pope the former spook I'd believe him too. To say no UFO was seen on radar they must of had them switched off? Radars pick up an assortment of UFO's all the time until the unidentifiable becomes the identifiable. Although Mr Pope can be somewhat convincing in his raptures I'd rather believe that my local dustman is like Tesla and comes from Venus.

If I were to take an out of the box approach to this incident as a many American cousins do with Roswell would I believe to we are talking about a weather balloon they saw? 'the official story'. Allow me to lay down my amour and explain, you ask me if 'I imply that the new kit was more effective than pre-existing fixed installations'. Yes indeed I do and you are correct in your assumption it is not 'conventional radar' it's military radar and not just radar.

Also to add the RAF and USAF bases in the local area were being 'upgraded' as previously mentioned. I feel you already know this I also have a feeling you may even have been party yourself to such knowledge? If so I shall add for your benefit so as we gain a better understanding of each other and to a degree a small amount of trust. A very serious fire broke out in the monitoring bunker of one such base I am not referring to the well documented 1966 fire at Neatishead. The fire occurred while those on duty were observing UFO phononmen this fire was so bad that unfortunately loss of life occurred because of the tenders filling the bunker and despite a re-fit as the facility was not decommissioned and not reported or known of by the press. This facility became haunted and serving officers would refuse to carry out duties.

The military are aware yet are unable to investigate as they have no powers or influence over these crafts and entities. Today I ponder upon what new 'kit' they operate as it would surly make our I pad's and the like look like technological antiques.

AdverseCamber I thank you for your investigative assistance and hope others are also forthcoming others who also have contributions to make without fear of reprisal.


Kind regards

M

newyorklily
01-24-2012, 04:34 PM
Also to add the RAF and USAF bases in the local area were being 'upgraded' as previously mentioned. I feel you already know this I also have a feeling you may even have been party yourself to such knowledge? If so I shall add for your benefit so as we gain a better understanding of each other and to a degree a small amount of trust. A very serious fire broke out in the monitoring bunker of one such base I am not referring to the well documented 1966 fire at Neatishead. The fire occurred while those on duty were observing UFO phononmen this fire was so bad that unfortunately loss of life occurred because of the tenders filling the bunker and despite a re-fit as the facility was not decommissioned and not reported or known of by the press. This facility became haunted and serving officers would refuse to carry out duties.

The military are aware yet are unable to investigate as they have no powers or influence over these crafts and entities. Today I ponder upon what new 'kit' they operate as it would surly make our I pad's and the like look like technological antiques.

M

Hi lux. I find this part very interesting. Do you have more information on that fire? A date perhaps? Or a link I can use for some more info? Thank you.

Doc
01-24-2012, 04:59 PM
I seem to recall a long effort to pry loose radar reports from nearby bases. The government story sounded fishy to me at the time. How about US F-15s being scrambled several nights to chase unidentifieds? USAF personnel wre talking about that around here a few months later, long before the story was known publicly here.

lux aurea in obscuro
01-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Good afternoon,

Newyorkilly all I can advise regarding the devastating fire was that it occurred around 1980 late in the evening 'night shift' and during the latter part of the year Summer/Autumn time. The fire was in a base in the Suffolk / Norfolk area a smaller monitoring base. If memory serves me well 'it normally does' I recall 3 souls were drown or incinerated resulting in having no means of escape. Those same tenders having to literally fill the entire bunker as the fire was very hard to control and extinguish.

After the re-fit mentioned and officers refusing duties, the cause of concern was taken so seriously that afterwards the bunker was filled in 'with concrete'. Reason being that the haunting was deemed extremely serious as those few brave officers who had attended duties below were tortured by the un-seen. Equipment went berserk, secure blast doors would malfunction effectively into lock-down, worse still physical harm and attacks occurred. I had the pleasure of knowing one officer concerned 'who had worked in the facility' he was an outstanding chap and an excellent martial arts instructor very gentle and very dangerous. He was a close family friend and I sensed the change in him after this incident, Lord have mercy upon him for he later hanged himself.

A new bunker was eventually constructed at the base, yet the location of the old bunker was fenced off. Of a night time around the time of the incident you would hear cry's, shouting and other sounds of distress and suffering from underground.

Doc you are indeed right about the air-craft manoeuvres and the scrambling to ascertain the many UFO's. The 1980's the early part of the 80's the peaceful British countryside was alive some evenings with much activity. I enjoyed the shear size of some of the formations scrambled at times wondering where all the planes had come from I am talking whole squadrons and varieties.

God bless all those people who sacrificed for our safety and security I know some of them became empty shells after witnessing certain events.


Kind regards

M

AdverseCamber
01-24-2012, 07:41 PM
Good afternoon AdverseCamber,


I have to give you credit for the confusion if only these incidents were so easily explained. Firstly allow me to defend the honour of this thread as well so we can all come to at least an logical conclusion based on facts not disinformation.

You mention Pam Titchmarsh DS8/UFO desk mentions no UFO reports on radar, however we are in 1983 talking about something still classified so I take it with a pinch of salt.

Also you mention in 1994 Nick Pope manning UFO desk responds to Central TV that no UFO was seen on radar during the period in question, Nick Pope the former spook I'd believe him too. To say no UFO was seen on radar they must of had them switched off? Radars pick up an assortment of UFO's all the time until the unidentifiable becomes the identifiable. Although Mr Pope can be somewhat convincing in his raptures I'd rather believe that my local dustman is like Tesla and comes from Venus.

If I were to take an out of the box approach to this incident as a many American cousins do with Roswell would I believe to we are talking about a weather balloon they saw? 'the official story'. Allow me to lay down my amour and explain, you ask me if 'I imply that the new kit was more effective than pre-existing fixed installations'. Yes indeed I do and you are correct in your assumption it is not 'conventional radar' it's military radar and not just radar.

Also to add the RAF and USAF bases in the local area were being 'upgraded' as previously mentioned. I feel you already know this I also have a feeling you may even have been party yourself to such knowledge? If so I shall add for your benefit so as we gain a better understanding of each other and to a degree a small amount of trust. A very serious fire broke out in the monitoring bunker of one such base I am not referring to the well documented 1966 fire at Neatishead. The fire occurred while those on duty were observing UFO phononmen this fire was so bad that unfortunately loss of life occurred because of the tenders filling the bunker and despite a re-fit as the facility was not decommissioned and not reported or known of by the press. This facility became haunted and serving officers would refuse to carry out duties.

The military are aware yet are unable to investigate as they have no powers or influence over these crafts and entities. Today I ponder upon what new 'kit' they operate as it would surly make our I pad's and the like look like technological antiques.

AdverseCamber I thank you for your investigative assistance and hope others are also forthcoming others who also have contributions to make without fear of reprisal.


Kind regards

M
Hello again M,

Okay, so you don’t trust Titchmarsh (MoD spokesperson) that’s your prerogative.

However it’s worth pointing out that any unidentified flying objects penetrating UK Air Defence Radar over the Christmas period should have been recorded by the highly sensitive equipment of the SOC at RAF Neatishead. The T84/85 radars there, in conjunction with Watton, gave excellent radar coverage of Bentwaters runway area almost off the end of the runway for departure and, to touchdown on arrival. Checks on Neatishead’s tapes had evidently been carried out when Pam Titchmarsh at DS8 contacted RAF (Ops) room in March 1983.

But if you think she's a liar, well, fair enough I suppose.

As for Pope being a 'former spook', I fear you accord him far too much power with this statement as he was a low-level civil servant and manning the UFO desk was a part-time appointment he was tasked with, Rick Doty he certainly ain’t.

The East Anglian countryside is dotted with powerful radars some of which date back to the Second World War and as I said Derek Coumbe who was on duty as commander of Eastern Radar on the night Col Halt called requesting confirmation of his sightings:


“They were very jumpy and panicky on the phone…..But I personally checked the radar picture and there was absolutely nothing to be seen. They kept coming back and implying there should be something but we kept a watch on it through the whole period and nothing was seen.”
If you don’t believe Coumbe that’s again your prerogative although I personally believe he has absolutely no reason to lie about this, also I couldn’t help but notice you still haven’t really answered my only question concerning the radar but rather dismissed out of hand the official sources I supplied.


Radar, really?

This is news to me, what’s your source for this information?


So when you wrote, “Over the space of several evenings radar sightings and distant lights from the forest being observed by many key witnesses” this was a conclusion you arrived at based on just the one inaccurate witness statement or are you aware of any relevant witnesses or documentation pertaining to this aspect?

Do you have or are you aware of any real-world documentation that can corroborate your following claim?


We can conclude that indeed the incident had taken place absolutely no argument. Over the space of several evenings radar sightings and distant lights from the forest being observed by many key witnesses.

I.e. any documented radar returns or any of the key witnesses whom you allege observed them?

newyorklily
01-24-2012, 08:12 PM
Actually, we have no idea if there was or wasn't any radar reports because all of the files on the Bentwaters incident have gone missing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12613690


2 March 2011 Last updated at 22:43 ET

UFO files reveal 'Rendlesham incident' papers missing
By Neil Henderson BBC News

Intelligence papers on a reported UFO sighting known as the "Rendlesham incident" have gone missing, files from the National Archives reveal.
The missing files relate to a report of mysterious lights from US servicemen at RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk in 1980.
The disappearance came to light with the release of 8,000 previously classified documents on UFOs.
Officials found a "huge" gap where defence intelligence files relating to the case should be, the papers show.

AdverseCamber
01-24-2012, 08:26 PM
Actually, we have no idea if there was or wasn't any radar reports because all of the files on the Bentwaters incident have gone missing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12613690





Huh?

'All' the files?!

Actually, what’s your source, especially considering the ones I’ve supplied, that the missing files contained any radar data?

You seem to be implying that because some (NOT "all") of the files are missing that these must contain the data requested when I’ve shown that’s not the case by identifying the files that DID contain the data.

Have you read this thread (or the released Rendlesham files) at all?

All of which is entirely beside the point anyway as lux made the statement that radar data actually existed, unless of course you’re asserting he was mistaken?

Dragonfire
01-24-2012, 09:35 PM
Britain's most famous UFO sighting is the Rendlesham Forest incident - referred to in America as the Bentwaters incident. It took place in December 1980 over a series of at least two nights. Most witnesses were United States Air Force personnel based at the twin bases of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge, in Suffolk. Witnesses included the Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Charles Halt.

Nick Pope undertook a cold case review of the Rendlesham Forest incident in 1994, while working on the MoD's UFO project. He has written about the case extensively in the media and discussed it on numerous TV shows.

In the early hours of 26 December 1980, military personnel at the twin bases saw strange lights in the forest. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed, they went out to investigate. What they found was a small triangular-shaped craft that had landed in a clearing in Rendlesham Forest. Nearby farm animals were going into a frenzy. One of the security police officers, Jim Penniston, got close enough to touch the side of the object. He and another of the airmen present, John Burroughs, attached sketches of the craft to their official USAF witness statements. One of these sketches details strange symbols Penniston saw on the craft’s hull, which he likened to Egyptian hieroglyphs.

<snip>

Two nights later, the UFO returned. The Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Charles Halt, was informed and together with a small group of men went out into the forest to investigate. As they progressed, radio communications were subjected to interference and powerful mobile generators (called light-alls) that Halt had brought to illuminate the forest began to cut out. Despite his initial plan to “debunk” the UFO sighting, Halt and his team then encountered the UFO, which at one point fired beams of light down at his party and at the Woodbridge facility. "Here I am, a senior official who routinely denies this sort of thing and diligently works to debunk them, and I'm involved in the middle of something I can't explain", he subsequently commented.

Charles Halt documented his encounter by recording his observations on a hand-held cassette recorder. The 17 minutes of tape are widely available on the internet. Halt reported the various incidents to the MoD in a memorandum dated 13th January 1981. Despite the innocuous title “Unexplained Lights”, the document described the UFO as being “metallic in appearance and triangular in shape ... hovering or on legs”. In what may have been either a typographical error or a slip of the memory, Halt gave incorrect dates for both sightings, recording each as having taken place a day later than was, in fact, the case.

The MoD’s investigation included an inconclusive search for radar evidence that might have corroborated what was seen, but the error in the dates meant the wrong tapes were checked. Of far more interest was an assessment of radiation readings that had been taken from the landing site with a Geiger counter. The readings had peaked in three holes in the ground which formed the shape of an equilateral triangle, which had been found at the spot where the craft landed. The Defence Intelligence Staff stated that the readings seemed “significantly higher than the average background”. Their report suggested that the radiation level was around seven times what would have been expected for the area concerned. This was confirmed to Nick Pope in 1994 by the Defence Radiological Protection Service.

Read full story here http://www.nickpope.net/rendlesham-forest.htm

Also, The MoD files; http://www.nickpope.net/mod-ufo-files.htm

Dragonfire
01-24-2012, 09:48 PM
From: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm & http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/appendix.htm

This is the text of the single-page memo written by Lt. Col. Halt to the UK’s Ministry of Defence. It was on official US Air Force headed notepaper but was not classified in any way. The memo was released under the US Freedom of Information Act in June 1983 by the US Air Force to Robert Todd of the pressure group Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). Note that the USAF had thrown out their own copy, evidently regarding it as of no further interest, and this copy actually came from the British MoD. The memo was dated 13 January 1981, over a fortnight after the events that are described had happened, and headed Unexplained Lights. The items in parentheses are all Halt’s:

THE HALT MEMO

1. Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L) two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate.


2. The next day, three depressions 1.5 inches deep and 7 inches in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (0.05–0.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions.


3. Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10 degrees off the horizon. The objects moved rapidly in sharp, angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3.


(Signed)
Charles I. Halt, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Base Commander



A NOTE ON THE DATES:
When Col. Halt wrote this memo he relied on memory for the dates, which we now know he got wrong by one day in each case. For the record, in paragraph 1, 27 Dec should be 26 Dec, and in para 2, 29 Dec should be 28.

As well as the wrong dates, there are inconsistencies between what Halt says in this memo about the radiation readings and what we hear on his tape, presumably also due to faulty memory.

If Halt kept a diary, he evidently never recorded these events in it – a curious omission if he really thought they were of significance. In fact, Col Halt seems never to have written up any account of his involvement in the sightings beyond what is contained in this memo, although in 2010 he did write and sign a notarized affidavit summarizing his involvement. Unfortunately this affidavit, compiled from memory 30 years after the events, is riddled with errors and exaggerations.

Dragonfire
01-24-2012, 09:50 PM
I did find this from: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicrend.html


Caught On Radar

East Anglia has always had extensive radar coverage, ever vigilant for a possible invasion from across the North Sea. This ensured that the object seen on 26th of December was detected. At RAF Neatishead, an unidentified object appeared on the radar and created panic in the control room. It returned no signal and was outperforming the RAF's finest aircraft. As they lost it off screen at a phenomenal speed, the matter was subject to a major investigation. The Neatishead radar tapes and those from nearby RAF Watton were requisitioned three days later. Remarkably, when USAF intelligence officers visited Watton to collect the film, they claimed that a UFO had crashed into the forest. Senior officers from a nearby USAF airbase witnessed the event, they said, and they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft. Incredibly, the radar officers were not even told to keep this extraordinary story secret.

calikid
01-24-2012, 10:07 PM
"...they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft."

That's news to me. Never heard of the floating aliens before. Does anyone else recall who may have made this claim?

AdverseCamber
01-24-2012, 10:38 PM
I did find this from: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicrend.html

Caught On Radar

East Anglia has always had extensive radar coverage, ever vigilant for a possible invasion from across the North Sea. This ensured that the object seen on 26th of December was detected. At RAF Neatishead, an unidentified object appeared on the radar and created panic in the control room. It returned no signal and was outperforming the RAF's finest aircraft. As they lost it off screen at a phenomenal speed, the matter was subject to a major investigation. The Neatishead radar tapes and those from nearby RAF Watton were requisitioned three days later. Remarkably, when USAF intelligence officers visited Watton to collect the film, they claimed that a UFO had crashed into the forest. Senior officers from a nearby USAF airbase witnessed the event, they said, and they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft. Incredibly, the radar officers were not even told to keep this extraordinary story secret.
Thanks DF but as I mentioned in an earlier post then unless at least one reference is provided detailing specifics then this is very likely just another case of hearsay (originating with the News Of The World front page article) being parroted and touted as fact without any kind of independent fact checking.

Or in this particular article it seems to be more a case of Chinese whispers.

I posted the information that directly addressed this in my earlier comment which is based on verifiable information available at http://uk-ufo.org :


However it’s worth pointing out that any unidentified flying objects penetrating UK Air Defence Radar over the Christmas period should have been recorded by the highly sensitive equipment of the SOC at RAF Neatishead. The T84/85 radars there, in conjunction with Watton, gave excellent radar coverage of Bentwaters runway area almost off the end of the runway for departure and, to touchdown on arrival. Checks on Neatishead’s tapes had evidently been carried out when Pam Titchmarsh at DS8 contacted RAF (Ops) room in March 1983.

"...they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft."

That's news to me. Never heard of the floating aliens before. Does anyone else recall who may have made this claim?
I could hazard a guess but its news to me as well and it sort of reinforces what I’ve just said to DF regarding the veracity of the source...

Dragonfire
01-24-2012, 10:40 PM
That was the first I heard of it too. I don't recall anywhere else that anyone saw "floating" Aliens or any kind of aliens for that matter.

Thought that might be an interesting find.

Dragonfire
01-24-2012, 10:43 PM
Actually, I never heard of or have found anything regarding radar contact by either the US or RAF. That above was the closest I could find. Which is very speculative considering there are "floating" aliens

To add: If there was any radar evidence, I believe it would of jumped out at any researcher looking into this back when it happened. Unless of couse you want to believe "they" removed the evidence.

newyorklily
01-24-2012, 11:57 PM
Huh?

'All' the files?!
All the files have gone missing. My source is the Ministry of Defense.
When the MoD released the files to the public, no files about the Rendelsham incident were released because none could be found. Therefore they are missing. Now, missing can mean anything from “reclassified” to “destroyed’. We just don’t know what happened to them.


Actually, what’s your source, especially considering the ones I’ve supplied, that the missing files contained any radar data?

You seem to be implying that because some (NOT "all") of the files are missing that these must contain the data requested when I’ve shown that’s not the case by identifying the files that DID contain the data.

That's your interpretation. That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we have no way of knowing. Read my post again.


Have you read this thread (or the released Rendlesham files) at all?
Do you have files from the MoD on the Rendelsham incident? If you do, I would love to see them.


All of which is entirely beside the point anyway as lux made the statement that radar data actually existed, unless of course you’re asserting he was mistaken?
My interpretation is that lux is talking about verbal reports by witnesses. I'm more interested in written radar reports.

newyorklily
01-25-2012, 12:09 AM
"...they had even seen aliens floating in beams of light underneath the spacecraft."

That's news to me. Never heard of the floating aliens before. Does anyone else recall who may have made this claim?

I've never heard of a "floating alien" either. The only "floating" that has been mentioned is that some allegedly reported that Jim Penniston either jumped or floated up on to the side of the craft. Jim Penniston denies that this happened.

As far as "aliens" go, John Burroughs has said, that when he was surrounded by the white light, he saw a face that terrrified him. Burroughs refuses to say that it was a "being" or an "alien".

AdverseCamber
01-25-2012, 12:41 AM
All the files have gone missing. My source is the Ministry of Defense.
When the MoD released the files to the public, no files about the Rendelsham incident were released because none could be found. Therefore they are missing. Now, missing can mean anything from “reclassified” to “destroyed’. We just don’t know what happened to them.



That's your interpretation. That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we have no way of knowing. Read my post again.
Yes we do have a way and some of us do in fact know what was released.

From the first link you posted:


Minister's request

The files reveal that key documentation relating to the Rendlesham Forest incident has disappeared.
Did you even read it?

I can’t fathom how you arrived at that conclusion from what was written in that article.


Do you have files from the MoD on the Rendelsham incident? If you do, I would love to see them.
How can I if your source is the "Ministry of Defence" and you have repeatedly stated that "All the files have gone missing?”

However, I guess you really can’t tell the people so here you go:


DETAILS of an alleged UFO sighting near a Suffolk RAF base more than 20 years ago have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. The Rendlesham File is one of the first documents to be released as part of an opening-up of the inner workings of Whitehall. It had previously only been seen by about 20 people, who requested access to it through the American Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.rense.com/general32/rend.htm

You’d better tell the Mod they’re wrong.

Oh wait, there is one other possibility...

newyorklily
01-25-2012, 01:09 AM
I stand corrected. Thank you for the documents.

lux aurea in obscuro
01-25-2012, 10:59 AM
Good morning,


I see before me a most fruitful discussion which is proving most valuable, I would like to thank all of you for assisting and posting.

To answer the reoccurring question regarding radar data which has been raised I of course have no radar data I hope that can help clear up any misunderstanding that may have resulted from my earlier posting. I do appreciate the number of different sources of information & disinformation available I see many witness statements posted which will result in forthcoming answers one hopes.

I have previously mentioned I was a young boy at the time of this incident, I come from a family which has served it's country and the information I have provided is the witness statement/s of them being in the service/s, attending duties in the area in question at the time of the incident.

The points raised regarding the evidence reported on the ground the sighting and touching of one such craft I find the most fascinating aspect. As mentioned cassette recording, drawings of symbols and the reading/s obtained as the location providing more evidence than any airspace monitoring devices.

Symbols reported and logged matching Egyptian hieroglyphics? Please forgive my slackness in speed finding these symbols I feel these could be a key part of the investigation. I see many ancient sites across the world having now discovered hieroglyphics these sites all the more mysterious being linked to cosmic star alignments.


Kind regards

M

Longeyes
01-26-2012, 08:37 PM
I know of three mentions of radar returns concerning Rendlesham

If you can get hold of a copy of Robert Hastings book UFO’s and Nukes there is a whole chapter in there dedicated to the Brentwater’s case.
What is astounding about Hastings is the number of new witnesses he managed to find.
It’s Chapter 21 – Beams of Light. This is proper nuts and bolts research Hastings traced these people down and interviewed them himself.

Rick Bobo was Security Policeman who stationed there at the time
“I heard some of the radio transmissions, not all of them, you understand, because there were different frequencies. I heard over the radio that London had spotted something on their radar. I heard some of the radio transmissions from some of the men who were out there….. There was lots of chatter on the radio. I think I heard that Heathrow [Airport] had it on radar. I’m surprised no one scrambled a fighter.
He was also interviewed in Georgina Bruni ‘You can’t tell the people’

Two USAF air traffic controllers James H. Carey and Ivan ‘Ike’ Barker who admitted to tracking an unidentified target on radar sometime between 26th Dec and 1st Jan 1981
Jim Carey : “At the time, I was a tech sergeant, an air traffic controller with the 2164th Communications Squadron. The other controller was named Ike Barker. A major named --- ----- was also there. I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o’clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight.”

Carey continued, “What I remember is seeing was a very fast object on the radar we had in the tower. The scope was variable—it had a zoom as far as its [displayed] range, between five and 60-miles radius, but I think it was at set at a 60-miles when the object appeared. It came in from the east, went straight west across the scope and disappeared off the left side. It took maybe four sweeps—each sweep was two or three seconds—to cross it entirely. So it covered 120-miles in [approximately eight to twelve] seconds. In the 15 years I was an air traffic controller, I’d never seen anything travel across the scope that fast. A few seconds later, it came back on the scope, retracing its course, west to east, at the same speed. Then—I think it was maybe half or three-quarters of the way across—it did an immediate right-angle turn and headed south, off the bottom of the screen. I mean, it turned just like that, instantly. We couldn’t believe it! I told Ike, ‘Okay, that was not one of ours!’”

He also interviewed four other witnesses not concerning radar tracks but to the Brentwater case:
Carl Thompson Jr a radio comms specialist,
Tim Egercic – a security policeman on D flight at Brentwaters
Robert ‘Charlie’ Waters also another SP
James ‘JD’ Burris a senior airmen assigned to the 81st SP Squadron

The third mention is this:
In Leslie Kean’s new book Nick Pope writes about Rendlesham as well.p169 (or p126 in paperback)
He mentions another witness a RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr who was stationed at RAF Watton Xmas 1980.
Someone at Brentwaters called him to ask him if he could see anything on his radar.
For three or four sweeps something did show up directly over the base.

Dragonfire
01-26-2012, 10:57 PM
Thanks for that Longeyes.

newyorklily
01-28-2012, 09:31 PM
I found this letter in the documents from this link http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart1.pdf (part of the document link provided by AdverseCamber which is on the Reense site.) It can be found on page 9 of the pdf document.


2. I believe your outlined response is the right one; Neatishead, which is the Sector Ops Centre responsible for that area had nothing unusual to report, and nothing more substantive has come to light. I have received no evidence that any radar reported unusual tracks. (Illegible) Randles appears to have “evidence of radar trackin”, and provided that it can be managed without undermining our position, I would like to have a look at the radar evidence.
(Bolding added by me.)

I can't read the first name but it looks to short to be "Jenny". Does anyone know who that person might be?

What would have happened if the evidence did undermine their position?

This does sound like plans for a cover up.

Doc
01-28-2012, 09:48 PM
I found this letter in the documents from this link http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart1.pdf (part of the document link provided by AdverseCamber which is on the Reense site.) It can be found on page 9 of the pdf document.


(Bolding added by me.)

I can't read the first name but it looks to short to be "Jenny". Does anyone know who that person might be?

What would have happened if the evidence did undermine their position?

This does sound like plans for a cover up.

That would be Jenny Randles, a most interesting person indeed. She pretty much broke the Rendlesham Forest case and wrote about it in a book, "Skycrash" with co-author Brenda Butler. Jenny Randles was a long time director of BUFORA, Britain's MUFON. Her own story is as intriguing as anything she wrote about and among other things, convinced me to never, ever, agree to receive documents I wasn't supposed to have.

calikid
01-29-2012, 03:15 AM
That would be Jenny Randles, a most interesting person indeed. She pretty much broke the Rendlesham Forest case and wrote about it in a book, "Skycrash" with co-author Brenda Butler. Jenny Randles was a long time director of BUFORA, Britain's MUFON. Her own story is as intriguing as anything she wrote about and among other things, convinced me to never, ever, agree to receive documents I wasn't supposed to have.

I'm not familar with Ms Randles.
From your comment; was she ever in trouble with authorities for possession of Classified materials?
Some sort of cautionary tale?

Doc
01-29-2012, 03:26 AM
I'm not familar with Ms Randles.
From your comment; was she ever in trouble with authorities for possession of Classified materials?
Some sort of cautionary tale?

I went looking for a link but couldn't find one that covered the story. She was approached by a young American military guy who offered her some documents he said he got from his CO who was retiring. The guy never showed for the meetup. He later denied it all. The whole story is very remiscent of the Serpo Pic Guy story, BTW. After that, she had one problem after another. Rumor was she was targeted by the PtB. She ultimately lost a lawsuit that left her penniless. I'm wondering if I can find anything that corroborates that or if the story is buried. I'll put up a link to whatever I find. I think it is amazing that she isn't even known at this point.

norenrad
01-29-2012, 04:33 AM
... convinced me to never, ever, agree to receive documents I wasn't supposed to have.

And that's a fact, think OPSEC.

We had a guy that just never got it, I guess "moron" is a permanent condition.

Longeyes
04-06-2012, 02:24 PM
Epo posted this in another thread but it's relevant here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sev01assDB0#!

At 29.35 Col Halt mentions that 'Eastern Radar' had the object on scope , but some one confiscated the tape.

That's one more mention of Radar evidence at Rendlesham.

Doc
04-06-2012, 06:25 PM
Epo posted this in another thread but it's relevant here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sev01assDB0#!

At 29.35 Col Halt mentions that 'Eastern Radar' had the object on scope , but some one confiscated the tape.

That's one more mention of Radar evidence at Rendlesham.

Thank you, good find! It jogged my memory and I recall that when investigators first tried to get radar records there was some confusion about the dates of the events and the wrong records were reviewed, showing nothing. Then it all got bogged down and things turned up missing or not available. That is a vague recollection from back in probably 1982 or 1983. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks.

epo333
06-14-2012, 12:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QRqL09raIQ&feature=player_embedded

Doc
06-14-2012, 01:50 PM
Excellent find!

CasperParks
06-14-2012, 04:51 PM
Epo333,

I had to skim through it. Very good stuff, and I agree with statments toward the end. Very soon...

newyorklily
06-14-2012, 06:19 PM
Great video, epo. Thank you.

epo333
07-07-2012, 02:17 PM
I don't think we had this posted anywhere, so here it is. Col Halt starts at 02:55


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDDWvhqJ8hg&feature=related

CasperParks
07-07-2012, 05:16 PM
epo333,

Thanks for sharing that video.

Anyone know when this was recorded?

Doc
07-07-2012, 05:44 PM
epo333,

Thanks for sharing that video.

Anyone know when this was recorded?

Another clip was uploaded April 26, 2010


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqU1kpklZjo&amp;feature=related

AdverseCamber
08-29-2012, 11:12 PM
I know of three mentions of radar returns concerning Rendlesham

If you can get hold of a copy of Robert Hastings book UFO’s and Nukes there is a whole chapter in there dedicated to the Brentwater’s case.
What is astounding about Hastings is the number of new witnesses he managed to find.
It’s Chapter 21 – Beams of Light. This is proper nuts and bolts research Hastings traced these people down and interviewed them himself.

Rick Bobo was Security Policeman who stationed there at the time
“I heard some of the radio transmissions, not all of them, you understand, because there were different frequencies. I heard over the radio that London had spotted something on their radar. I heard some of the radio transmissions from some of the men who were out there….. There was lots of chatter on the radio. I think I heard that Heathrow [Airport] had it on radar. I’m surprised no one scrambled a fighter.
He was also interviewed in Georgina Bruni ‘You can’t tell the people’
Ah yes, Hastings.

Firstly regarding the ‘new witnesses’ what you perceive as astounding I perceive with apprehension & suspicion but that’s just me. Regarding Rick Bobo, he was as you stated interviewed by Bruni so his claim isn’t new and apparently neither is it accurate. Firstly this is at best hearsay because he didn’t actually see any evidence for his claim. Additionally it is widely regarded that the only relevance Heathrow has ever had is that there was a sighting of a UFO by a civil aircraft heading over Essex and this was reported to the CAA at Heathrow.

Jenny Randles wrote that:


“In retrospect it is fairly apparent that this was most likely to be a sighting of the Cosmos re-entry at just after 9 pm on Christmas Night - that is six hours before the main event in Rendlesham. When Bentwaters checked for radar reports (just as did Watton) it is not a surprise that they were told something like - 'actually its been a busy night we had a sighting made at Heathrow too' - even if this is not directly tied to the events at 3 am.

I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely - that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the Rendlesham case.
And staying with Randles she also wrote over at www.ufoevidence.org that:


The Suffolk police established that there were several UFO reports during the previous night, including sightings on radar screens at Heathrow Airport near London. It is likely that much of this activity referred to an incident just after 9:00 p.m. on 25 December, when the booster from a Soviet space probe had burned up on re-entry over South East England and fell into the North Sea. This trail of debris brought a flood of sightings into BUFORA (the British UFO Research Association) as well as to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), because some witnesses thought that this was an aircraft exploding in mid-air.

The MoD file reveals no evidence that the British government believed this case to be solved, but still regarded it as having no defence significance. The lack of any unidentified radar targets that correlated with the UFO sightings was one key reason.

Two USAF air traffic controllers James H. Carey and Ivan ‘Ike’ Barker who admitted to tracking an unidentified target on radar sometime between 26th Dec and 1st Jan 1981
Jim Carey : “At the time, I was a tech sergeant, an air traffic controller with the 2164th Communications Squadron. The other controller was named Ike Barker. A major named --- ----- was also there. I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o’clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight.”

Carey continued, “What I remember is seeing was a very fast object on the radar we had in the tower. The scope was variable—it had a zoom as far as its [displayed] range, between five and 60-miles radius, but I think it was at set at a 60-miles when the object appeared. It came in from the east, went straight west across the scope and disappeared off the left side. It took maybe four sweeps—each sweep was two or three seconds—to cross it entirely. So it covered 120-miles in [approximately eight to twelve] seconds. In the 15 years I was an air traffic controller, I’d never seen anything travel across the scope that fast. A few seconds later, it came back on the scope, retracing its course, west to east, at the same speed. Then—I think it was maybe half or three-quarters of the way across—it did an immediate right-angle turn and headed south, off the bottom of the screen. I mean, it turned just like that, instantly. We couldn’t believe it! I told Ike, ‘Okay, that was not one of ours!’”

Hastings opens with:


James H. Carey and Ivan "Ike" R. Barker, now belatedly admit to tracking an unidentified target on radar at the Bentwaters Air Traffic Control Tower one night-sometime between December 26, 1980, and January 1, 1981-as they worked an extended holiday schedule.
Just to clarify the term ‘belatedly’ we’re talking 28 years after the event!

Their accounts were unknown prior to Hastings’ Nukes-book (2008), and not only that but they’re massively inconsistent both with each other and also with currently documented and generally accepted fact. For example:


I think the incident happened between 10 and 12 o'clock, if I remember right. Ike and I usually worked 6 p.m. to midnight, but it was during the holidays, when we might have to work eight or nine hours. But as I recall, it happened before midnight."
Obviously both of the witnesses state it was before 12am which is some three-to-four hours prior to the actual time, a fact which is beyond reproach owing to the following also from Hastings:


Barker later told me that he or Carey had also called a British radar unit known as Eastern Radar, to report the tracking. British researcher Dr. David Clarke has interviewed the RAF Commander who was at Eastern Radar in 1980-81, Derek Coumbe, who confirms receiving a call from the Bentwaters tower. According to Clarke, "[Coumbe] was on duty when the UFO report was received in the early hours of 28 December. He said he received a direct call patched through from the Bentwaters tower reporting a 'flashing light' over Rendlesham Forest." Coumbe logged the call, noting that although he had the duty controller attempt to verify the track, "nothing was observed."

And from Clarke’s (uk-ufo.org) website:


In 1989 Nick Redfern wrote to Eastern Radar asking for confirmation of the radar story. Squadron Leader Eric Webster, on behalf of the base CO, told Redfern that all tape recordings from the period in question, both sound and radar, had been routinely disposed of “as was procedure. Webster was able to provide a transcript of the single relevant entry from the base log, which confirmed the correct date of the "second night”. The call to Eastern Radar was timed at 0325 GMT on 28 December 1980.

[...]

Squadron Leader Derek Coumbe, who was the RAF Commander at Eastern Radar in 1980-81, confirmed in interviews with David Clarke in 2001 and 2003 that he was on duty when the UFO report was received in the early hours of 28 December. He said he received a direct call patched through from the Bentwaters tower reporting a “flashing light” over Rendlesham Forest. The MoD file contains a note from Coumbe which confirms a check was made by the duty controller but “nothing was observed...the facts are recorded in our log book of that night.”

(Continued Below)

AdverseCamber
08-29-2012, 11:14 PM
(Continued From Above)

All of the above even prompted the author Hastings to highlight (unusually) what can only be considered as glaring inconsistencies, inconsistencies which in my opinion diminishes to the point of irrelevance what must already be considered as spurious and highly suspicious accounts (28 years after the fact):


This account raises a number of questions about the radar tracking mentioned by Barker and Carey. Both recall it having occurred sometime before midnight, probably on the night of December 27th, however, the British log entry about the call was made on the 28th at 0325 GMT (3:25 a.m.). Further, Coumbe remembers the caller making reference to a flashing light over the woods, however, Barker only recalls seeing a round, non-flashing object near the base water tower, while Carey does not recall a visual on the object at all.

Are Barker and Carey wrong about the timing of the tracking?

Barker recalls having Carey call the Woodbridge tower immediately afterward, via a patch from the Ground Control Approach radar unit, to find out whether the controllers there also tracked the UFO. According to Barker, the Woodbridge tower usually closed down each night around midnight, therefore, it would seem that the radar tracking reported to me had to have occurred hours earlier than 3:25 a.m. If that was the case, it appears there was a second tracking at Bentwaters. If so, why do Barker and Carey not remember it, or recall reporting a flashing light over the forest? Both recall seeing a glow coming from the woods, but nothing in the air above them. I asked Barker these questions but he was as puzzled as I.

Another obvious question is why only one or two UFOs left radar signatures when Halt reported seeing at least four of them low in the sky-about "10-degrees" above the horizon-while he was in the farmer's field. I asked Barker to explain this discrepancy but he told me he didn't know why there weren't more anomalous tracks that night, adding, "We would have tracked anything down to 500-feet ."
For what it's worth then I’m firmly of the belief that when Hastings suggests there’s reason to doubt witness testimony he’s personally collected then in my experience it’s best to forget it completely.


The third mention is this:
In Leslie Kean’s new book Nick Pope writes about Rendlesham as well.p169 (or p126 in paperback)
He mentions another witness a RAF radar operator Nigel Kerr who was stationed at RAF Watton Xmas 1980.
Someone at Brentwaters called him to ask him if he could see anything on his radar.
For three or four sweeps something did show up directly over the base.
Way back in 2001 just prior to the MoD release of Rendlesham files Clarke & Roberts wrote the following:


The retired Squadron Leader told us: "[i]I recall the incident well [as] I was on duty at the time it occurred. I can confirm that the call came from Bentwaters RAPcom. They requested that we scan the radars for any radar targets in their area; there were NONE. They reported flashing lights in the Rendlesham Forest area, outside the airfield runway [and that] the base police were investigating the incident."

The officer was on duty on the same night as a civilian radar operator Nigel Kerr who claims he saw a "blip" on his screen above the base runway coincident with the report from Bentwaters. The blip disappeared after several sweeps of the radar. Kerr's CO dismisses this claim, saying that no such observation was reported to his Controller at the time, who oversaw the ATC screens at the joint military/civilian facility.

This is a fact confirmed by the CO in contemporary note in the MOD file, dated 26 February 1981 that reads:

"On the night of the reported sighting our controller on duty was requested to view the radar; nothing was observed. The facts are recorded in our log book of that night."

He added that the T84 analogue radars at Watton frequently detected spurious echoes that behaved exactly as Kerr described.

The lack of radar corroboration was confirmed by Halt in a 1997 interview when he said:

" called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defence of the sector.. twice they reported that they didn't see anything.."

The Watton CO also confirmed that he personally ordered that all radar tapes - both from 27/28 December and surrounding dates - should be impounded for examination. This was not unusual but entirely consistent with MOD procedure following reports of unusual sightings.
And all of this is corroborated by an earlier article by James Easton (Rendlesham Unravelled) dating back to May 1998 (not long after the Halt/Rayl interview) and so removes the possibility that Clarke et al are engaging in any perpetuating any kind of sanctioned disinformation.


Epo posted this in another thread but it's relevant here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=Sev01assDB0#!

At 29.35 Col Halt mentions that 'Eastern Radar' had the object on scope , but some one confiscated the tape.

That's one more mention of Radar evidence at Rendlesham.

Not necessarily. I'm assuming its Kimball's "Best Evidence" that the now broken link pointed to?

If so then this was released in 2007 whereas I've just detailed above that 10 years prior Halt was claiming different:


The lack of radar corroboration was confirmed by Halt in a 1997 interview when he said:

" called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defence of the sector.. twice they reported that they didn't see anything.."
So which Halt do we believe, the somewhat naive 1997 model or the media-savvy (soon to be author) 2007 version?

Fool me once, fool on you.
Fool me twice...

Either way though I’m sure you’d agree that the four examples you posted are essentially hearsay and are not, and never have been, backed up in any way, shape or form by any documentation that has ever been proved to exist, which was sort of my original point…

majicbar
08-30-2012, 03:49 AM
In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.

1. Not all UFOs show up on radar, UFOs can selectively cloak themselves from radar. Thus, UFOs sometimes are able to disappear and sometimes present visual sighting while remaining invisible on radar. This has been true in both ground and air reports of UFOs.

2. There were several days of sightings, memories could become confused or conflated over the length of time between the sightings and the various reports and interviews.

3. The USAF is not about any time to open their files if they can get away with it, so it is not a valid point to try and say there is no documentation to confirm various points, even when there are British reports that do indicate something happened.

AdverseCamber
08-30-2012, 10:04 AM
In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.

1. Not all UFOs show up on radar, UFOs can selectively cloak themselves from radar. Thus, UFOs sometimes are able to disappear and sometimes present visual sighting while remaining invisible on radar. This has been true in both ground and air reports of UFOs.

2. There were several days of sightings, memories could become confused or conflated over the length of time between the sightings and the various reports and interviews.

3. The USAF is not about any time to open their files if they can get away with it, so it is not a valid point to try and say there is no documentation to confirm various points, even when there are British reports that do indicate something happened.

In your comment you have seemingly ignored the only point I was discussing, and as for ignorance of the phenomena, yeah, whatever.

Seemingly you are just ignorant otherwise why would you claim others are ignorant to the phenomena when we are specifically discussing radar returns? Why don’t you go and chastise someone who cares about your boastful knowledge of the history of the phenomena and try to impress them with your baseless insults.

You’re wasting your time with me.

A99
08-30-2012, 01:21 PM
@AdverseCamber, There is ZERO indication at all that majicbar has directed any "baseless insults" toward you so I think that accusation is completely unwarranted. By directing such a missive like that towards someone, you are bullying him and when people resort to such underhanded tactics like that in any kind of debate, it indicates that they are on the defense because they know that their side of the argument is massively flawed and is much weaker than the opposing viewpoints presented by the person whom they are bullying.






In your comment you have seemingly ignored the only point I was discussing, and as for ignorance of the phenomena, yeah, whatever.

Seemingly you are just ignorant otherwise why would you claim others are ignorant to the phenomena when we are specifically discussing radar returns? Why don’t you go and chastise someone who cares about your boastful knowledge of the history of the phenomena and try to impress them with your baseless insults.

You’re wasting your time with me.

AdverseCamber
08-30-2012, 01:49 PM
@AdverseCamber, There is ZERO indication at all that majicbar has directed any "baseless insults" toward you so I think that accusation is completely unwarranted. By directing such a missive like that towards someone, you are bullying him and when people resort to such underhanded tactics like that in any kind of debate, it indicates that they are on the defense because they know that their side of the argument is massively flawed and is much weaker than the opposing viewpoints presented by the person whom they are bullying.
For all I simply rephrased what he said?


In all this "debate' over supposed points of testimony over the incident there are things which have been ignored, seemingly out of ignorance of the history of the phenomena to which this incident would belong.
But if you say so, then my bad I guess as I’m apparently ignoring things due to my obvious of ignorance of the history of the phenomena and it definitely wasn’t an insult.

Garuda
08-30-2012, 02:44 PM
MODERATION NOTE

This is one of those cases where the quirks of language may be playing tricks on us, and where the subtle differences between the English that is spoken on both sides of the Atlantic are causing misunderstandings.

The case in point: in North-American English, the expression 'ignorant' is often used where in British English 'unaware' would be more appropriate because the word 'ignorant' is British English carries a different 'load' and is considered more offensive.

@AdverseCamber: knowing majicbar's style of posting I'm pretty sure no offense was intended and that the expression 'ignorant of the history' was used in the meaning of 'unaware of' or 'unfamilar with'.

@majicbar and A99: I can perfectly understand AdverseCamber's reaction. The first time I was told that I was 'ignorant' of something, it came across as an insult. To those of us speaking British English, it comes across as 'You don't know what you're talking about.'
So, see it from AC's point of view: here he provides a detailed account of arguments (which you may or may not agree with), and the reaction seems to be 'you don't know what you're talking about' ...

So, in short, I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding.

Shall we stick to the debate?

And know that with topics like this, people will always disagree because they are using different data sets from which they draw different conclusions.
So, in order to keep the debate civil, it may be necessary to agree to disagree.

Thanks for your cooperation.

A99
08-30-2012, 02:46 PM
@Advers.... Just a thought...things have changed in regards to people having the courage to come forth and give their own testimony on anything having to do with UFOs. In this current day and age, over half the people out there at least acknowledge that the UFO phenomenon is indeed a very real one. Therefore, when someone see's a UFO, they are not as apprehensive as they once were about reporting those sightings and even talking about them to friends and family... and even the media too. They are no longer as fearful of being called a nut for admitting that they have seen a UFO. Nor do they have to worry as much about jeopardizing their job status when talking about such incidents.

So keeping this in light, it is disingenuous of you to imply that those who have recently come out of the woodwork to talk about their own experiences having to do with this case as liars and attention seekers when it very well may be that nothing could be further from the truth because it could be that they simply are much more comfortable now in these current times about talking about those experiences and what they have seen or heard during the time of that incident whereas before, they were anything but that.

AdverseCamber
08-30-2012, 04:57 PM
@Advers.... Just a thought...things have changed in regards to people having the courage to come forth and give their own testimony on anything having to do with UFOs. In this current day and age, over half the people out there at least acknowledge that the UFO phenomenon is indeed a very real one. Therefore, when someone see's a UFO, they are not as apprehensive as they once were about reporting those sightings and even talking about them to friends and family... and even the media too. They are no longer as fearful of being called a nut for admitting that they have seen a UFO. Nor do they have to worry as much about jeopardizing their job status when talking about such incidents.

So keeping this in light, it is disingenuous of you to imply that those who have recently come out of the woodwork to talk about their own experiences having to do with this case as liars and attention seekers when it very well may be that nothing could be further from the truth because it could be that they simply are much more comfortable now in these current times about talking about those experiences and what they have seen or heard during the time of that incident whereas before, they were anything but that.
So you conclude from the following mentions of the timescale that I’m being disingenuous?!


Firstly regarding the ‘new witnesses’ what you perceive as astounding I perceive with apprehension & suspicion but that’s just me.
[...]
Just to clarify the term ‘belatedly’ we’re talking 28 years after the event! Their accounts were unknown prior to Hastings’ Nukes-book (2008), and not only that but they’re massively inconsistent both with each other and also with currently documented and generally accepted fact.
[...]
All of the above even prompted the author Hastings to highlight (unusually) what can only be considered as glaring inconsistencies, inconsistencies which in my opinion diminishes to the point of irrelevance what must already be considered as spurious and highly suspicious accounts (28 years after the fact)
It would have been disingenuous if I hadn't mentioned them, so regarding your quote of:


it is disingenuous of you to imply that those who have recently come out of the woodwork to talk about their own experiences having to do with this case as liars and attention seekers
How dare you? NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE have I implied, suggested or hinted at anything of the sort.

As you can clearly see above the only mention I made of the time elapsed was almost as an addendum and certainly didn't base any of my opinions on them but rather focused solely on the facts, you should try it some time it's quite liberating.

In fact I’ll tell you what’s disingenuous, contrary to what I wrote that you assume you know what I was really thinking, perceiving it as disingenuous then proceed to assign potentially slanderous allegations to my words under the guise that you think I implied something which I clearly didn’t.

I actually detailed specific instance/s within the testimony that were contradictory and provide a passage of text from Hastings (who actually interviewed them) highlighting further inconsistencies and furthermore this was only for ONE of FOUR witnesses. Yet you concentrate on the time elapsed and presumably translate my (honest) feelings of suspicion & apprehension as me labelling someone as a liar & an attention seeker?!

Now that’s astounding…


A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Disingenuous
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:

calikid
08-31-2012, 04:56 AM
Name calling?
Definitions?
Really?

How about we focus on the evidence and the witnesses, and stop examining each other.

The temperature will come down in this thread, hopefully without assigning "time outs".

AdverseCamber
08-31-2012, 12:17 PM
Name calling?
Definitions?
Really?

How about we focus on the evidence and the witnesses, and stop examining each other.

The temperature will come down in this thread, hopefully without assigning "time outs".
Name calling & definitions?

Yeah, I was wrongly called disingenuous so I explained what I wrote, why I wrote it and what disingenuous actually means.

What would your suggestion be?

Should I just accept people labelling me with whatever derogatory term they plucked out of the ether with no retort? Last time I was called ignorant and this time I’m called disingenuous, I accept that ‘ignorant’ may have been a misunderstanding but the very next post I’m called ‘disingenuous’ and when I respond I’m threatened with a time out?

Just to refresh your memory, I responded to an earlier query with a detailed reply including quotes & sources but rather than address any of this there were aspersions cast regarding my motivations & intent, I question the aspersions by defining what they meant and clarifying what I had meant and now I’m threatened with a time out?

Not one word mentioned about the undeserving personal insult in response to my comments?

This is exactly what it was like in the bad old days, just ignore the insults as long as they’re from a member who mostly agrees with the staff but if it’s from someone who differs in opinion then “moderate the hell out of ‘em!!” I guess the ‘loose moderation’ only applies to those who declared their allegiance by blindly followed the pied piper/s from the sinking ship that was OM?

Warning, time-out & ban-hammer (but not necessarily in that order).

I’m certainly not surprised but I am however massively disappointed to see this divisive mentality still lives & thrives here at TOP.


Same problems, different board.



Happy Trails Y’all…..

newyorklily
08-31-2012, 02:11 PM
Name calling & definitions?

Yeah, I was wrongly called disingenuous so I explained what I wrote, why I wrote it and what disingenuous actually means.

What would your suggestion be?

Should I just accept people labelling me with whatever derogatory term they plucked out of the ether with no retort? Last time I was called ignorant and this time I’m called disingenuous, I accept that ‘ignorant’ may have been a misunderstanding but the very next post I’m called ‘disingenuous’ and when I respond I’m threatened with a time out?

Just to refresh your memory, I responded to an earlier query with a detailed reply including quotes & sources but rather than address any of this there were aspersions cast regarding my motivations & intent, I question the aspersions by defining what they meant and clarifying what I had meant and now I’m threatened with a time out?

Not one word mentioned about the undeserving personal insult in response to my comments?

This is exactly what it was like in the bad old days, just ignore the insults as long as they’re from a member who mostly agrees with the staff but if it’s from someone who differs in opinion then “moderate the hell out of ‘em!!” I guess the ‘loose moderation’ only applies to those who declared their allegiance by blindly followed the pied piper/s from the sinking ship that was OM?

Warning, time-out & ban-hammer (but not necessarily in that order).

I’m certainly not surprised but I am however massively disappointed to see this divisive mentality still lives & thrives here at TOP.


Same problems, different board.



Happy Trails Y’all…..

Chill, Adverse Camber. It wasn't just you that was being addressed. Moderations are for all involved.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Garuda
08-31-2012, 02:26 PM
@AC:

1. what makes you think that post was directed at you only?
It was as much directed at A99 who was out of line...

2. "What would your suggestion be?"
There are a number of options: you could have reported the post; you could have contacted staff in a PM or mail, ...

3. Time-out can just as well mean 'lock the thread for a while' to let things cool down.

4. Comparison to OM: this is the first time in 30 weeks apparently that a moderation intervention took place, so I don't think that comparison is correct.

5. Last but not least: I for one appreciated the posts you had made about the Rendlesham Forest incident, and think it's important that each and every case be approached from different angles. It encourages critical thinking and serves the truth.

So I hope that the discussion can continue in a more dispassionate fashion.

Having said all of that, let's get back on topic.
If you want to discuss moderation, take it to PM, please.



EDIT TO ADD: the post above this one was posted while I was typing this one, so I hadn't seen it.

AdverseCamber
08-31-2012, 03:34 PM
Chill, Adverse Camber. It wasn't just you that was being addressed. Moderations are for all involved.

Thanks for pointing that out, and of course even more thanks for ‘moderating’ me for defending myself…

Doc
08-31-2012, 10:11 PM
The discussion of Eastern Radar is somewhat confusing. The call was on December 28? That must refer to the 2nd night then. When investigators requested the radar for 26/27 they were asking for the wrong night as the 1st sighting was the night before. There were contemporary mentions of radar returns the first night. I was first told of the case months afterward and was specifically told they (USAF) tracked unidentified aircraft on several nights between Christmas and New Years and sent fighters up after them more than once.

AdverseCamber
09-01-2012, 12:49 AM
The discussion of Eastern Radar is somewhat confusing. The call was on December 28? That must refer to the 2nd night then. When investigators requested the radar for 26/27 they were asking for the wrong night as the 1st sighting was the night before.
Oh the MoD’s incompetence knows no bounds as they actually requested wrong data for both nights. Relying solely on Halts memo they dutifully requested data for the 27th & the 29th.


There were contemporary mentions of radar returns the first night. I was first told of the case months afterward and was specifically told they (USAF) tracked unidentified aircraft on several nights between Christmas and New Years and sent fighters up after them more than once.
I’m not sure what you mean by contemporary and I’m in no position to dispute what you were told first hand, all I can confidently state is that there has never been any evidence produced that corroborates this version of events. The closest thing that does (regarding radar returns) was what I’ve already posted as the following is what is thought to have occurred, courtesy of Jenny Randles:


The Suffolk police established that there were several UFO reports during the previous night, including sightings on radar screens at Heathrow Airport near London. It is likely that much of this activity referred to an incident just after 9:00 p.m. on 25 December, when the booster from a Soviet space probe had burned up on re-entry over South East England and fell into the North Sea. This trail of debris brought a flood of sightings into BUFORA (the British UFO Research Association) as well as to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), because some witnesses thought that this was an aircraft exploding in mid-air.


The MoD file reveals no evidence that the British government believed this case to be solved, but still regarded it as having no defence significance. The lack of any unidentified radar targets that correlated with the UFO sightings was one key reason.
[…]
“In retrospect it is fairly apparent that this was most likely to be a sighting of the Cosmos re-entry at just after 9 pm on Christmas Night - that is six hours before the main event in Rendlesham. When Bentwaters checked for radar reports (just as did Watton) it is not a surprise that they were told something like - 'actually its been a busy night we had a sighting made at Heathrow too' - even if this is not directly tied to the events at 3 am.


I checked with both Watton and the MoD and both deny any records showing that any radar base - let alone Heathrow - tracked the object seen at 3 am inside the forest. They may be lying, of course, but we cannot assume that. Its equally likely - surely - that any radar tracking made were found not to connect into the Rendlesham case.”
And to add a personal observation the fact that when confirmation (on the two correct nights) was sought from an outside source (Police & Eastern Radar) both of the events were logged and were found, indeed this is how the correct date was determined, yet still no anomalous radar returns were ever logged. So bearing that in mind and as Halt said in 1997 that when he wanted corroboration he:

" called the command post, asked them to call Eastern Radar, responsible for air defence of the sector.. twice they reported that they didn't see anything.."

Apart from the obvious discrepancies with what you were told this also shows that Halt and on-base radar was far from being the final word as he sought external confirmation from the radar station responsible for local defence of the sector. So to me it seems highly improbable that USAF fighters were launched based solely on the testimony of Halt and especially not based solely according to returns on the on-base radar equipment (which as you can see Halt bypassed anyway).

Did your source mention where the USAF fighters were based?

Oh and while I remember the keyword/tag for Halt is spelled incorrectly at the foot of this page.

epo333
09-01-2012, 02:14 AM
Oh while I remember the keyword/tag for Halt is spelled incorrectly at the foot of this page.

Thanks A.C. I just fixed that...!

lux aurea in obscuro
09-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Good afternoon,


I have just been reading some information on 'alienshift.com' I don't know how reliable the information is as it's my first visit? I was drawn in as I noticed when searching that Philadelphia Project and Project Montauk were both heavy into the manipulation of radio waves and frequencies.

What did grab my attention being this:

"There is another matter. Starting about August 6th, 1943, UFOs appeared over the Eldridge for about six days. They were there during the test. One of the UFOs was sucked up into hyperspace with the Eldridge and it ended up in an underground facility in Montauk in 1983. It contained a charging device which some aliens made us go back and get for them, as they didn't want humans to have it. We don't know who they were. Pruett was concerned about an alien invasion.
Also, Von Neumann was called by the government to come and assist in the examination of a crashed UFO in 1947 at Aztec. Another crash occurred at Aztec about a year later. The first crash had greys on it and none survived. At least one occupant survived the second crash. The radar systems unintentionally brought down the craft. Radar was used intentionally after that until the aliens got wise to it."

At this preliminary stage in my research I am unable to furnish any further regarding any evidence or official records to this effect, I will endeavour to dig a bit deeper. Yet it would seem to tie in with my much earlier mention on this thread that radar and detection equipment being employed around Rendlesham had negatively effected the craft.

Hope to have more soon,

Kind regards.

AdverseCamber
09-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Good afternoon,


I have just been reading some information on 'alienshift.com' I don't know how reliable the information is as it's my first visit? I was drawn in as I noticed when searching that Philadelphia Project and Project Montauk were both heavy into the manipulation of radio waves and frequencies.

What did grab my attention being this:

"There is another matter. Starting about August 6th, 1943, UFOs appeared over the Eldridge for about six days. They were there during the test. One of the UFOs was sucked up into hyperspace with the Eldridge and it ended up in an underground facility in Montauk in 1983. It contained a charging device which some aliens made us go back and get for them, as they didn't want humans to have it. We don't know who they were. Pruett was concerned about an alien invasion.
Also, Von Neumann was called by the government to come and assist in the examination of a crashed UFO in 1947 at Aztec. Another crash occurred at Aztec about a year later. The first crash had greys on it and none survived. At least one occupant survived the second crash. The radar systems unintentionally brought down the craft. Radar was used intentionally after that until the aliens got wise to it."

At this preliminary stage in my research I am unable to furnish any further regarding any evidence or official records to this effect, I will endeavour to dig a bit deeper. Yet it would seem to tie in with my much earlier mention on this thread that radar and detection equipment being employed around Rendlesham had negatively effected the craft.

Hope to have more soon,

Kind regards.
I don’t know if you’re aware of Jacques Vallee as while his theories regarding the broader UFO phenomenon are considered by most to be scholarly they don’t exactly gel with the essence of the ETH and so aren’t exactly embraced buy Ufologists in general. My point being that while his theories are up for debate (as everyone’s are) I don’t think there has ever a question of his integrity or his honesty.

The reason I’m telling you this is because he investigated the Philadelphia experiment back in the day and wrote:


In an earlier assessment of the Philadelphia Experiment data, the author offered the tentative conclusion that the story was, in part, based on fact: the Navy may have been involved in technically-advanced, classified tests in the Fall of 1943 (Vallee, 1991). These developments could have been misunderstood or deliberately romanticized by people like Allende, just as today we find tests of advanced flying platforms at Nellis Air Force Base being misinterpreted by believers. Furthermore I hypothesized that the experiments had to do with a radar countermeasures test. Indeed a Raytheon advertisement published thirteen years ago suggested that the corresponding technology was now out in the open (Raytheon, 1980). This hypothesis, however, failed to explain a few of the facts that highlighted the story. In particular it did not account for the observed disappearance of the destroyer from the harbor, for the mysterious devices brought on board under extreme security precautions, or for the alleged disappearance of two sailors from a nearby tavern. I called out to any one of my readers who might have additional information. That is how I came to correspond, and later to meet face to face, with Mr. Edward Dudgeon.
This was then updated withg, amongst other things, the following interview:


"How long had all this secret equipment been available?"

"About six to eight months, as far as I can tell. By the time we sailed out, submarine warfare had turned in our favor along the East Coast."

"This doesn't tell us how the Eldridge disappeared into thin air, or what actually happened in the tavern in early August 1943."

"That's the simplest part of the whole story," Mr. Dudgeon replied. "I was in that bar that evening, we had two or three beers, and I was one of the two sailors who are said to have disappeared mysteriously. The other fellow was named Dave. I don't remember his last name, but he served on the DE 49. The fight started when some of the sailors bragged about the secret equipment and were told to keep their mouths shut. Two of us were minors. I told you I cheated on my enlistment papers. The waitresses scooted us out the back door as soon as trouble began and later denied knowing anything about us. We were leaving at two in the morning. The Eldridge had already left at 11 p.m. Someone looking at the harbor that night have noticed that the Eldridge wasn't there any more and it did appear in Norfolk. It was back in Philadelphia harbor the next morning, which seems like an impossible feat: if you look at the map you'll see that merchant ships would have taken two days to make the trip. They would have required pilots to go around the submarine nets, the mines and so on at the harbor entrances to the Atlantic. But the Navy used a special inland channel, the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal, that bypassed all that. We made the trip in about six hours."

"Why did the ships have to go to Norfolk?"

"Norfolk is where we loaded the explosives. Those docks you see on the aerial photographs are designed for ammunition. The Navy loaded ships twenty-four hours a day. They could load a destroyer in four hours or less. I know that's where the Eldridge went, and she wasn't invisible, because we passed her as she was on the way back from Virginia, in Chesapeake Bay."

"In other words, the process was: out of dry dock, down the canal, loading ammunition in Norfolk, back to Philadelphia, out to sea to set the compasses and test radar and sonar gear?"

"Exactly. The Eldridge never disappeared. All four ships went to Bermuda in July 43 and came back together in early August. During that time we were also caught in a storm that created a display of green fire accompanied by a smell of ozone. The glow abated when it started raining."
The full Vallee interview/text is available in his paper titled, “Anatomy of a Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later” and is available in “The Journal Of Scientific Exploration.” – vol_08-01 - (Click text) (www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_vallee.pdf).

In fact a lot of the points you raised are addressed, the following is an excerpt from “The Montauk Project”:


The Montauk Project

Today most students of ufology (including such early proponents of the Allende
letters as Jerome Clark) are in agreement that the Philadelphia Experiment
hoax, which rested on very flimsy data to begin with, should have died a
long time ago. It did not even involve any clear indications that might be directly
relevant to ufology, since none of the witnesses described unusual objects
in the sky or unusual beings. The case should have died a peaceful death
in the sixties. Yet it has survived and thrived in a peculiar niche of the paranormal
to this day. After a UFO lecture, or during a talk show, it is a common experience
to have a member of the audience eagerly raise the question, "what
about the Philadelphia Experiment?" And the whole "mystery" is now rebounding
in a new form through the Montauk project, an alleged time-travel
experiment. Here again there is a secret setting (an Air Force Base in New
York rather than a Navy base in Pennsylvania), a book, alleged witnesses, and
a videotape.

There is even a workshop on "Time Travel and the Alien Presence - a report
on the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project" by A1 Bielek,
Preston Nichols and Duncan Cameron for $150 in tuition, plus meals and
shared lodging at $100, or $70 for camping. In the catalog of forthcoming
events of the Rim Institute for 1993 one can read an advertisement which
claims:

The Montauk project has been called one of America's
greatest modern mysteries. The story began with the pioneering
work of Wilhelm Reich and Nikola Tesla, took form in
government-sponsored weather control experiments in the
early 1940s, and crystallized in the ill-fated Philadelphia Experiment
on invisibility during World War Two. The
Philadelphia Experiment was closed, but long-term research
continued. The Montauk project, running through the seventies
and early eighties at New York's Montauk Air Force
Base, was an attempt to explore, chart and ultimately manipulate the flowe of time.


The key witness for these new revelations is Preston Nichols, who "regained
the blanked memories of his role as chief technician for the project only after
years of struggle." Alfred Bielek, co-author of the Philadelphia Experiment
(in the book by Brad Steiger) claims to be one of two sailors who "fell through
time" from the 1940s to 1983 and who later served as a consultant at Montauk.
Duncan Cameron, "the foremost psychic employed by the Project," also fell
through. In a very convoluted story, A1 Bielek claims to have been born as Edward
Cameron, who was Duncan Cameron's brother. Then alien technology
was used by secret government agencies to erase him from his own time track
and to give him the body and background of Alfred Bielek, born in 1927. Advertising
the seminar run by Bielek and his fellow time-travelers the Rim Institute
brochure concludes: "their story, whether accepted or not, is guaranteed
(sic) to stretch the limits of your reality."

That last statement, at least, has the ring of truth.
It’s quite a lengthy interview and paper and of course whilst I personally believe this revised edition by Vallee to be the most accurate, whether you do or not I would still encourage you to read his paper as at the very least (in my experience) it’s best to fully grasp what is being claimed, the origins if possible and the subsequent findings of ALL involved in heavily researching it.

lux aurea in obscuro
09-04-2012, 11:21 AM
Good morning AdverseCamber,


Thank-you most kindly for a full fat response! I also find it very interesting how peoples take on situations change over the years. I would not want to ruin this thread regarding Rendlesham as being off topic for introducing too much material relating to the USS Eldridge.

I currently concern myself with the possible effect's of radar and detection equipment on UFO's. I have taken a read of the Vallee interview but find it only makes a real mess of thing's almost as if to dismiss the whole experiment as a drunken sailors jolly.

So if we wish to discuss the USS Eldridge 'which I am happy too', maybe we should start a dedicated thread?

Back on topic AdverseCamber I have a question for you if you care to indulge me? I am grateful for your response to my post's and your level of reasoning which seems sound. Yet from my perspective it seems you are only to happy to dismiss the notion that our radar and detection equipment could negatively effect UFO's? So I ask you do you believe it is possible that this is indeed the case?

I would like you take on that particular situation if you care too share. For me I believe that the Rendlesham incident was effected by the equipment being employed at the time, yet that is just my opinion until I can prove otherwise.

I have been thinking a great deal about radars and feel something could be afoot, allow me to elaborate. In the UK alone we have hundreds of different radars all for a reasonably small island. I understand they are vectoring and 3D mapping targets 24/7 and have a lot of work to do. When considering Military / commercial / private airfields and redundancy issues I still find it hard to believe we require just so many. I ponder just now if these mammoth machines have a duel purpose, is the number of radars and like equipment possibly explained if we consider them as being a UFO deterant?

Did we as in other countries knowingly build as many radar installations as poss knowing that they were silent security for our sky's and if any UFO's were caught close to the facility they could have problems.

UFO's and airbases strange when reflecting I notice the most famous cases are reported around airbases which would be using radar and such equipment. I know people maybe even TOP members having been operators and installation engineers reading this could give us your take, which would help me ton's! I am now going to bog off and learn all I can about radar's past and present and see if I can't simply erect one up top of me council flat :das and pull in a few far flung friends for a wee chat.

Kind regards.

AdverseCamber
09-04-2012, 11:03 PM
Thank-you most kindly for a full fat response! I also find it very interesting how peoples take on situations change over the years. I would not want to ruin this thread regarding Rendlesham as being off topic for introducing too much material relating to the USS Eldridge.

I currently concern myself with the possible effect's of radar and detection equipment on UFO's. I have taken a read of the Vallee interview but find it only makes a real mess of thing's almost as if to dismiss the whole experiment as a drunken sailors jolly.
With the greatest respect it doesn’t sound like you’ve read it, it’s not just an interview but so much more. As it is indeed titled, it’s the anatomy of a hoax, the following is stated within the paper :


“Using this incident as a model of a successful hoax, the present article extracts thirteen parameters that have been instrumental in its remarkable survival over the last fifty years; it compares the features of this fabrication to other questionable episodes of UFO lore; finally, it attempts to draw up a list of suitable measures for their detection, challenge and ultimate exposure.

[…]

In conclusion we will attempt to draw general lessons from the survival of this blatant hoax over half a century. We have identified thirteen important features that made the story compelling. It is our hope that the safeguards drawn from the study can help us recognise patterns this outright fabrication shares with other tales that arc: capturing the imagination of paranormal researchers today.
Vallee also specifically states his research indicated top secret testing was going on:


What Actually Happened in Philadelphia

In an earlier assessment of the Philadelphia Experiment data, the author offered the tentative conclusion that the story was, in part, based on fact: the Navy may have been involved in technically-advanced, classified tests in the Fall of 1943 (Vallee, 1991). These developments could have been misunderstood or deliberately romanticized by people like Allende, just as today we find tests of advanced flying platforms at Nellis Air Force Base being misinterpretedby believers. Furthermore I hypothesized that the experiments had to do with a radar countermeasures test. Indeed a Raytheon advertisement published thirteen years ago suggested that the corresponding technology was now out in the open (Raytheon, 1980). This hypothesis, however, failed to explain a few of the facts that highlighted the story. In particular it did not account for the observed disappearance of the destroyer from the harbor, for the mysterious devices brought on board under extreme security precautions, or for the alleged disappearance of two sailors from a nearby tavern. I called out to any one of my readers who might have additional information. That is how I came to correspond, and later to meet face to face, with Mr. Edward Dudgeon.

"I am a sixty-seven year old retired executive. I was in the Navy from 1942 through 1945," began Mr. Dudgeon's letter (Dudgeon, 1992) explaining his purpose in contacting me (see Figure 3.) He confirmed that the idea of an actual, secret technical development was correct, but he said I was wrong about a radar test. The truth, as he patiently wrote to me, was simpler.
And regarding the ‘drunken sailors jolly,’ seriously I’m at a total loss as to how you arrived at that conclusion. The tavern scenario is an integral part of the Philadelphia experiment lore and this is the exact context in which Vallee addresses it and is the only time alcohol is mentioned, was the following the totality of why you assume it’s a ‘drunken sailors jolly’:


"This doesn't tell us how the Eldridge disappeared into thin air, or what actually happened in the tavern in early August 1943."

"That's the simplest part of the whole story," Mr. Dudgeon replied. "I was in that bar that evening, we had two or three beers, and I was one of the two sailors who are said to have disappeared mysteriously. The other fellow was named Dave. I don't remember his last name, but he served on the DE 49. The fight started when some of the sailors bragged about the secret equipment and were told to keep their mouths shut. Two of us were minors. 1 told you 1 cheated on my enlistment papers. The waitresses scooted us out the back door as soon as trouble began and later denied knowing anything about us. We were leaving at two in the morning.


So if we wish to discuss the USS Eldridge 'which I am happy too', maybe we should start a dedicated thread?
I think that ship has sailed (pun wholeheartedly intended).


Back on topic AdverseCamber I have a question for you if you care to indulge me? I am grateful for your response to my post's and your level of reasoning which seems sound. Yet from my perspective it seems you are only to happy to dismiss the notion that our radar and detection equipment could negatively effect UFO's? So I ask you do you believe it is possible that this is indeed the case?

I would like you take on that particular situation if you care too share. For me I believe that the Rendlesham incident was effected by the equipment being employed at the time, yet that is just my opinion until I can prove otherwise.

I have been thinking a great deal about radars and feel something could be afoot, allow me to elaborate. In the UK alone we have hundreds of different radars all for a reasonably small island. I understand they are vectoring and 3D mapping targets 24/7 and have a lot of work to do. When considering Military / commercial / private airfields and redundancy issues I still find it hard to believe we require just so many. I ponder just now if these mammoth machines have a duel purpose, is the number of radars and like equipment possibly explained if we consider them as being a UFO deterant?

Did we as in other countries knowingly build as many radar installations as poss knowing that they were silent security for our sky's and if any UFO's were caught close to the facility they could have problems.

UFO's and airbases strange when reflecting I notice the most famous cases are reported around airbases which would be using radar and such equipment. I know people maybe even TOP members having been operators and installation engineers reading this could give us your take, which would help me ton's! I am now going to bog off and learn all I can about radar's past and present and see if I can't simply erect one up top of me council flat and pull in a few far flung friends for a wee chat.
That’s sort of a ‘wife-beater fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html )’ question as I don’t necessarily believe that the ETH has the answer to all the questions the UFO enigma poses and certainly not the classical ETH, i.e. that which presupposes that sentient extraterrestrial biological entities have traversed deep space in order to visit our planet. I personally believe it fails on even the most fundamental levels, I don't discount it but struggle to reconcile it with some of the more 'high strangeness' cases.

However if this is the scenario you’re suggesting then I believe it’s absurd to think a race capable of creating spaceships that can travel at or around the speed of light yet still manage to avoid the many asteroid belts, debris & space junk would be foiled by relatively simplistic earth radar.

If anything I’d favour the rationale that if it flies, it can crash. (Occam gets a hard time but he had a point).

But to answer your question and assuming for a minute that the ETH is 100% correct then it’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination that another race that, amongst other things, was interested in our technological capabilities would frequent military establishments to gauge this. Which would also account for, as you pointed out, their propensity to crash near to radar installations.

The entire proposition strikes me as, ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’.

And as an answer to the RFI I’m unaware of any object crashing let alone as a result of radar interference but to be honest there’s that many conflicting stories surrounding the modern-day myth it has now morphed into that nothing would surprise me…

lux aurea in obscuro
09-05-2012, 10:14 AM
Good morning AdverseCamber,

Many thanks once again for some delicious food for thought first thing this morning.

Firstly please except my apologises regarding "wife-beater fallacy" lines of questioning, although I am starting to enjoy the possibility of some BDSM bondage it's not my intention to offend or cause harm.

I can assure you I had read your suggested work of Vallee, and as you pointed out the 'top secret testing' had me spinning as on one hand we have a ship that did not disappear but simply set sail. On another level we have equipment and wires wrapped around the craft inside and out to demagnetise the vessel, which is connected to two other support ship's containing equipment via extensive cables. I would have thought with the ship in dock prepared for the experiment it would not have been as simple as just sailing away? Yet as you mention "that ship has sailed" Owing to such I see no point in presenting evidence supporting these top secret experiments aboard the Eldridge.

Thanks for your clarification on the point of radar effecting UFO's negatively, I agree 100% that we have way too many conflicting stories. I also find it hard to believe although not absurd that a simplistic radar could effect a "race capable of creating spaceships that can travel at or around the speed of light".

Now back to Rendlesham, and the symbols which were wrote down:

714

These symbols were recorded as been witnessed on the craft, these symbols are very similar to those depicted at the Japanese 'Utsuro Bune' 1803 incident. I notice that one particular symbol which is a large triangle in a circle, with a large circle to the front of the triangle and a smaller one behind it happens to represent 'transmutation' in alchemy. The transmutation of one element to another.

Feeling these recorded symbols will be our key to unlocking what happened, also believing these symbols warrant additional investigation. I understand that one symbol can have many meanings, however within the context of our thread here keeping things simple. Let us just for a moment assume that the main symbol as mentioned indeed relays to 'transmutation, transmuting'. Can anybody give any clue as to what they think the other symbols could represent? Could the three smaller symbols in the middle of the top row be a 3D key of sorts?

Kind regards.

Longeyes
09-05-2012, 10:05 PM
Hi adverse camber
I always ask people before I try to open their minds to the possibility that some Ufos are ET craft
Do you think there is other intelligent life in the universe? And the answer has always been yes. The problem we have is I think twofold. One we are heavily biased and think our technology is pretty advanced and can see now way it could get any better. To which the obvious answer is we a naiscient species with barely 150yrs of real technological development where would we be in a thousand hundred thousand or even a million years time? We have no idea in terms of our science how they can get here, but we'd be pretty unrealistic to think we know all the answers. The second problem is well why haven't I heard about it then. Why is this such a minority view? That takes a lot to overcome standing apart from the mainstream and the concensus reality puts us in a very uncomfortable place. In no way am I suggesting that all Ufos are ET craft by the term that would be daft. But there are plenty of very decent cases were it is clear that craft show signs of intelligent control and technological capabilities way beyond our current technology. To these the ETH Hypothesis has got to be well backed up

AdverseCamber
09-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Hi adverse camber
I always ask people before I try to open their minds to the possibility that some Ufos are ET craft
Do you think there is other intelligent life in the universe? And the answer has always been yes. The problem we have is I think twofold. One we are heavily biased and think our technology is pretty advanced and can see now way it could get any better. To which the obvious answer is we a naiscient species with barely 150yrs of real technological development where would we be in a thousand hundred thousand or even a million years time? We have no idea in terms of our science how they can get here, but we'd be pretty unrealistic to think we know all the answers. The second problem is well why haven't I heard about it then. Why is this such a minority view? That takes a lot to overcome standing apart from the mainstream and the concensus reality puts us in a very uncomfortable place. In no way am I suggesting that all Ufos are ET craft by the term that would be daft. But there are plenty of very decent cases were it is clear that craft show signs of intelligent control and technological capabilities way beyond our current technology. To these the ETH Hypothesis has got to be well backed up
I appreciate what you’re saying and I actually agree with you but intelligently controlled & physics-defying is one thing and whether or not they’re controlled by off-world sentient beings is another thing completely. Sure there are cases when it seems to be the obvious solution but these are so scarce it doesn’t seem like the solution for the majority of unexplained incidents. Just to be clear I mean well-researched and well-documented cases just won’t seem to conform or be shoehorned into the somewhat limited possibilities that the ETH provides.

Like I said I don’t discount it but have problems reconciling it with some of the high strangeness cases, in a vain attempt to drag this thread back on topic, as Rendlesham aficionado Jenny Randles termed it, ‘the Oz factor’.

In my experience and in a lot of cases the ETH is more often than not found wanting.

Doc
09-25-2012, 01:09 AM
Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up

Posted: 09/24/2012 2:07 pm EDT Updated: 09/24/2012 3:30 pm EDT



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/ufo-secrets-turn-out-to-be-strong-opinions_n_1907492.html?icid=hp_weird-news_top_art


http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-32.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20 12%2F09%2F24%2Fufo-secrets-turn-out-to-be-strong-opinions_n_1907492.html&hl=en-US)


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/784921/thumbs/r-UFOPANEL-large570.jpg

UFO News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ufo-news), Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/video), Nick Pope (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nick-pope), Smithsonian Institution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/smithsonian-institution), Air Force Project Blue Book (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/air-force-project-blue-book), Area 51 Lecture (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/area-51-lecture), Col. Bill Coleman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-bill-coleman), Col. Bob Friend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-bob-friend), Col. Charles Halt (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-charles-halt), Col. John Alexander (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-john-alexander), Flying Saucers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/flying-saucers), Military Ufos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/military-ufos), National Atomic Testing Museum (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/national-atomic-testing-museum), Ufo Secrets (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ufo-secrets), Uk Ministry Of Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/uk-ministry-of-defense), Unidentified Flying Objects (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/unidentified-flying-objects), Weird News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/weird-news)






LAS VEGAS -- Former Air Force Col. Charles Halt accused the federal government of a UFO cover-up that involves a secret agency to deal with what might be extraterrestrial visitations.
"I'm firmly convinced there's an agency, and there is an effort to suppress," Halt told an audience of 200 people Saturday night at the Smithsonian-affiliated National Atomic Testing Museum (http://www.nationalatomictestingmuseum.org/).
Two former Air Force officers who were part of the infamous Project Blue Book (http://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html) -- the military's official UFO investigation in the 1950s and '60s -- and a former investigator with Britain's Ministry of Defense were among the panel of speakers for a program entitled "Military UFOs: Secrets Revealed."

CasperParks
09-25-2012, 02:31 AM
Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up
Posted: 09/24/2012 2:07 pm EDT Updated: 09/24/2012 3:30 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/ufo-secrets-turn-out-to-be-strong-opinions_n_1907492.html?icid=hp_weird-news_top_a
http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-32.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20 12%2F09%2F24%2Fufo-secrets-turn-out-to-be-strong-opinions_n_1907492.html&hl=en-US)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/784921/thumbs/r-UFOPANEL-large570.jpg

UFO News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ufo-news), Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/video), Nick Pope (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/nick-pope), Smithsonian Institution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/smithsonian-institution), Air Force Project Blue Book (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/air-force-project-blue-book), Area 51 Lecture (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/area-51-lecture), Col. Bill Coleman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-bill-coleman), Col. Bob Friend (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-bob-friend), Col. Charles Halt (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-charles-halt), Col. John Alexander (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/col-john-alexander), Flying Saucers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/flying-saucers), Military Ufos (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/military-ufos), National Atomic Testing Museum (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/national-atomic-testing-museum), Ufo Secrets (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/ufo-secrets), Uk Ministry Of Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/uk-ministry-of-defense), Unidentified Flying Objects (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/unidentified-flying-objects), Weird News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/weird-news)


LAS VEGAS -- Former Air Force Col. Charles Halt accused the federal government of a UFO cover-up that involves a secret agency to deal with what might be extraterrestrial visitations.
"I'm firmly convinced there's an agency, and there is an effort to suppress," Halt told an audience of 200 people Saturday night at the Smithsonian-affiliated National Atomic Testing Museum (http://www.nationalatomictestingmuseum.org/).
Two former Air Force officers who were part of the infamous Project Blue Book (http://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html) -- the military's official UFO investigation in the 1950s and '60s -- and a former investigator with Britain's Ministry of Defense were among the panel of speakers for a program entitled "Military UFOs: Secrets Revealed."

Interesting read.

majicbar
09-25-2012, 03:48 AM
Col. Halt was at the UFO conference in Las Vegas at the Nuclear Test Museum, was supposedly the most solid of all the speakers.

Doc
09-28-2012, 12:02 AM
via Paola Harris:

http://eyewitnessradio.com/east-gate-security-airman-last-interview/

East Gate Security Airman does “Last Interview!” September 27, 2012





Steve Le’Plume http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k596/Arkansas_west_central_section_MUFON/Untitled-22.jpg (http://www.paolaharris.com/books.htm)
Steve Le’Plume was a young airman charged with guarding the East Gate at RAF Bentwaters in December/January,1980. Today, he is a successful Super Bike Racer and a Security Guard for High profile Politicians, Dignitaries and Entertainers all over the world and was a Mercenary involved in the Iran Contra affair with the bullet hole scares to prove it. He is one of the most interesting and to most of us, virtually un heard of witnesses to the1980/81 event! I have found that he has an entirely new version of even more events that happened back then and we had to get him on Eye Witness Radio for a talk on his perspective through his own eyes. He says, “This will be my Last Interview” and you don’t want to miss this show! Special Thanks to Paola Harris (http://www.paolaharris.com/home.htm) for arranging this interview for us. Without her, this interview would not be taking place.

epo333
11-19-2012, 03:26 AM
Tonight's show on COAST TO COAST...

Rendlesham UFO Incident:
Sun 11-18

Charles Halt, former USAF base commander, will share his eyewitness account of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest sightings, and his personal investigation of the alleged UFO landing site. He'll be joined by ufologist Robert Hastings, who'll discuss his research into this phenomenal incident. Hosted by George Knapp.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

newyorklily
11-19-2012, 07:09 AM
Tonight's show on COAST TO COAST...

Rendlesham UFO Incident:
Sun 11-18

Charles Halt, former USAF base commander, will share his eyewitness account of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest sightings, and his personal investigation of the alleged UFO landing site. He'll be joined by ufologist Robert Hastings, who'll discuss his research into this phenomenal incident. Hosted by George Knapp.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Thanks for posting this, epo333. I'm listening to it now.

majicbar
11-19-2012, 06:10 PM
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/11/18

Coast to Coast page about the show.

majicbar
05-25-2013, 07:32 AM
Penniston and Buroughs are protesting the VA's holding the medical records in relation to the incident, both are having health issues and want to know what the USAF knows and has transmitted to the VA about the health effects about their exposure. They have some Congressmen helping and have appealed to President Obama to help in the release of these records. There seems little if any reasonable reason for the failure to disclose this information if there were no craft involved. One therefore has to take it that there indeed had to be a craft involved. But who's, and what was this craft?

This information was in a press release that George Knapp read on the Friday night (5-25-2013, first hour) Coast to Coast show.

http://www.citizenhearing.org/images/citizenhearing/pr/pr_13-04-30.pdf

Doc
05-27-2013, 03:32 AM
Some key quotes from the press release:

"We've been stonewalled", Burroughs said. "We've tried A, We've Tried B, we've tried C and none of the avenues have lead to proper support of our post incident medical issues, nor to any
viable explanation of why information useful to treatment of our condition is being withheld."

By filing a federal lawsuit the pair intends to force disclosure of the details known to their chain
of command pertaining to the incident that would prove useful in treatment of their respective
conditions.

"After almost two years of utterly futile attempts to obtain John Burroughs' and Jim Penniston's
service medical records from the government, in addition to a failed attempt by former Arizo
na Senator Jon Kyl, it is becoming ever more apparent that someone, somewhere, does not want them
released," said Pat Frascogna, counsel for Burroughs and Penniston. "Key records from the
time frame in question seem to be considered classified by the VA. Consequently, if we cannot
obtain them, all of them, without redaction, then we will have no recourse but to file suit against
the federal government, perhaps as soon as by year's end."

http://www.citizenhearing.org/images/citizenhearing/pr/pr_13-04-30.pdf

majicbar
12-21-2013, 07:21 AM
Radar, really?

This is news to me, what’s your source for this information?

http://www.therendleshamforestincident.com/Radar.html

As is typical the U.S. AFOSI nabbed the tapes and intimidated the radar operators, official reports were covered up. Linda Moulton Howe and her website Earthfiles also reported radar observations. The object of the UFO interest was the nuclear weapons stored off the end of the runway.

Doc
03-03-2014, 05:52 AM
I just discovered this on Youtube while looking for something else. It is the Lost Rendlesham UFO CNN Special. In case this has not already been posted here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93yeAZhPWuw

ProblemChild
03-07-2014, 05:25 PM
Thanks Doc that was interesting. Still waiting on the next news on Pennistons code.

Longeyes
04-13-2014, 11:00 AM
The new book 'Encounter at Rendlesham' is out received a copy yesterday.
At last it has full details of the binary code. Lat and long of the all the coordinates and photocopies of the last remaining pages of the note book. They've still clung to the ludicrous assertion that the first and last are Hy Brazil.

Longeyes
04-13-2014, 12:54 PM
The full binary code

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Doc
04-13-2014, 09:21 PM
The full binary code

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Thanks! I saw an interview with Jim Penniston the other day which suggests that has yet more to reveal on the encounter in the forest. I don't think it is "story-creep" either (a witness has to embellish the story to continue to get attention). Time will tell.

newyorklily
04-13-2014, 09:31 PM
The full binary code

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Cool! Thank you.
Does he say anything about the number "666" in "Exploration of Humanity"? I find that odd.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

majicbar
04-13-2014, 11:09 PM
The full binary code

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

The text here does not square with the photos that Linda Moulton Howe's Eartfiles.com had of the pages from Penniston's notebook. I am certain that the location was in planetary geocode which does not use E or W in longitude, only a value always understood as in the direction of the planets rotation, which for the Earth is always East. If one takes the origin as city hall, this is within a few feet of the intersection to the parking lot, and if this was being used by the craft as a navigation waypoint, then 66.6 degrees at 8100 meters puts on on the runway apron at Bentwaters airbase, some 100+ meters from the nuclear storage bunkers which were to be surveyed by UFOs the next several nights. HyBrazil was an implanted memory and a misidentification by the investigators from Prometheis Productions, the truth is quite clear if one just thinks about it with some seriousness.

Longeyes
04-13-2014, 11:15 PM
Cool! Thank you.
Does he say anything about the number "666" in "Exploration of Humanity"? I find that odd.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

No he doesn't in fact there was scant mention of the binary code. From the last I recalled they were off round the world going to all the sites. I guess that never happened.
However the lead author in the book is really Nick Pope and they've really tried to keep it as factual as possible and at first glance done a great job.

majicbar
04-14-2014, 08:05 PM
It occurs to me there is an error in the coding of the geolocation information here. There is nothing within the photos of Penniston's notebook to indicate the location of the decimal points in the coding. As presented here all locations have six decimal precision, except the one imputed to be HyBrazil, it has seven digits. Having been trained as a map maker and my knowledge of planetary mapping, one would not mix six and seven digit precision: 52.0942532 does not belong as a correct number, or all the other six decimal locations are not correct. Using seven digit decimals makes the origin and first set of numbers come directly to city hall in Woodbridge which leads me to suspect that seven digits are correctly the ones to use. But if seven digits should be used, that throws all locations int question. I really need to see photos of all of Penniston's notebook.

newyorklily
04-14-2014, 08:29 PM
It occurs to me there is an error in the coding of the geolocation information here. There is nothing within the photos of Penniston's notebook to indicate the location of the decimal points in the coding. As presented here all locations have six decimal precision, except the one imputed to be HyBrazil, it has seven digits. Having been trained as a map maker and my knowledge of planetary mapping, one would not mix six and seven digit precision: 52.0942532 does not belong as a correct number, or all the other six decimal locations are not correct. Using seven digit decimals makes the origin and first set of numbers come directly to city hall in Woodbridge which leads me to suspect that seven digits are correctly the ones to use. But if seven digits should be used, that throws all locations int question. I really need to see photos of all of Penniston's notebook.

Majicbar, if a number from 0 to 9 was added to the Hy Brazil coordinates, would it give us a location that seems to have a significance (either in history or presently)? Could a number have been removed to hide the true location?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

calikid
04-14-2014, 09:56 PM
Y
The text here does not square with the photos that Linda Moulton Howe's Eartfiles.com had of the pages from Penniston's notebook. I am certain that the location was in planetary geocode which does not use E or W in longitude, only a value always understood as in the direction of the planets rotation, which for the Earth is always East. If one takes the origin as city hall, this is within a few feet of the intersection to the parking lot, and if this was being used by the craft as a navigation waypoint, then 66.6 degrees at 8100 meters puts on on the runway apron at Bentwaters airbase, some 100+ meters from the nuclear storage bunkers which were to be surveyed by UFOs the next several nights. HyBrazil was an implanted memory and a misidentification by the investigators from Prometheis Productions, the truth is quite clear if one just thinks about it with some seriousness.

I saw Penniston do an interview some months ago. As I recall, 8100 was referenced as a future date.
His theory, the craft was manned by Time traveling humans, from the year 8100.

Don't recall the 666 being mentioned. Very mabus number.

majicbar
04-14-2014, 11:09 PM
Majicbar, if a number from 0 to 9 was added to the Hy Brazil coordinates, would it give us a location that seems to have a significance (either in history or presently)? Could a number have been removed to hide the true location?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2Penniston shows suggestibility to the beliefs of others, like the location being HiBrazil which came from his interaction with Promethius Productions, I attribute this to the drugs given by AFOSI/CIA to Pennistion in his debriefing. The end of the new binary translation takes 8100 as a date, but taken as a distance at 66.6 degrees we come to a landmark which fits into a narative of UFO activity as reported on earthfiles.com, where taking it as a date is merely speculative that the craft came from the future, which while not unreasonable, explain then how that greater narative is left hanging.

majicbar
04-14-2014, 11:33 PM
Majicbar, if a number from 0 to 9 was added to the Hy Brazil coordinates, would it give us a location that seems to have a significance (either in history or presently)? Could a number have been removed to hide the true location?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2As I have explored the possibilities HyBrazil and it's "location" can not be made to make any sense. It is a red herring that came from the Promethesis Production investigation which used degree, minute, second notation and placed this location being as W, West. The original string of code shows no breaks, so did the W belong in the geolocation string? WCONTIG is a windows code repair program, I contend that the geocode is the planetary type which uses longitude based on a bodies rotation, which is understood for the Earth as being East, so notation is not necessary nor would it be used as a navigation waypoint. By the UFO listing WCONTIG it could indicate that it was repairing it's programming which is why it had landed. I really want to see Penniston's original pages from his notebook.

Lee
04-15-2014, 08:12 PM
The new book 'Encounter at Rendlesham' is out received a copy yesterday.
At last it has full details of the binary code. Lat and long of the all the coordinates and photocopies of the last remaining pages of the note book. They've still clung to the ludicrous assertion that the first and last are Hy Brazil.
I'd like to see the full binary code too. Might have to get a copy of the book.

We had some good analysis in the old OMF thread, shame it's not available online anymore.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 12:22 AM
It occurs to me there is an error in the coding of the geolocation information here. There is nothing within the photos of Penniston's notebook to indicate the location of the decimal points in the coding. As presented here all locations have six decimal precision, except the one imputed to be HyBrazil, it has seven digits. Having been trained as a map maker and my knowledge of planetary mapping, one would not mix six and seven digit precision: 52.0942532 does not belong as a correct number, or all the other six decimal locations are not correct. Using seven digit decimals makes the origin and first set of numbers come directly to city hall in Woodbridge which leads me to suspect that seven digits are correctly the ones to use. But if seven digits should be used, that throws all locations int question. I really need to see photos of all of Penniston's notebook.

Agreed standard notation esp a machine would always give the same number of decimal figures.
I will copy them out this weekend :)
That's why we always needed them the interpretation of them is not correct or as exact as is made out.

majicbar
04-17-2014, 02:47 AM
Agreed standard notation esp a machine would always give the same number of decimal figures.
I will copy them out this weekend :)
That's why we always needed them the interpretation of them is not correct or as exact as is made out.It is an interesting exercise as one with knowledge of computer design to see the raw code that precedes machine code. What we see in Penniston's binary code is something that will be taken by the computer and loaded into machine registers and then processed from that point on. In order to make code work for longitude it would have to be loaded in registers with as I contend 7 digits and the remainder would be the degree coding, this is the only way to get 3 degrees, 30 degrees and 175 degrees to not confuse the computer, and by going to planetary notation the East West is negated and no other notation is needed as 359 degrees longitude would load just as well as any other degree of longitude, only needing three numbers, where 179E or 179W would require four. The machines design would be interesting to think about in comparison to how today's drones are handling geocoding, I suppose that would be considered a military secret, but perhaps it is out there as someone's dissertation for a degree, or in an expired patent.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 09:25 AM
Page 1 of note book
0100011001001110101010
10101010010010101
000100100001000011
01001111010011110100
01000100100101001
11(0)0100000101010100
0100010101000011010
011110100111001010
1000100100101001110
010101(0)10100111101010
100010101010101000
1010101110
01000011011000101
010100000101001
0_0100001001000
10101000110010011
1101010010

The underscore is a definate space. The numbers in brackets are where the characters are unclear.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 09:53 AM
Page 2
01000101_0101100(0)
01010000_01001100
0100111101010010
010000001010101000
1001001010011110100
1110_0100111101000
111_01001000_010101
010100110101000001
01001110_01001001
01010100_01011001
0011011_0011011
0011011_00111000
00110001_00110000
00110000

Again spaces are in the note book. Interesting that they start to group into 8's. 01 at the start of an 8 bit is the start of a capital letter. So you can begin to read the binary code. Putting in down like this enables us to see mistakes where they were made.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 03:38 PM
Page 3
0011010100110010
00110000001110010011
0100001100100011
0101001100110011
0010_01001110
001100010011001100
11000100110011
00110001001100100011
0110_00111011_0101
0111_010000110100
1111_0_1001110
01010100_0100
100100101001110

Doc
04-17-2014, 04:01 PM
Nice work, Longeyes!

calikid
04-17-2014, 04:52 PM
I'll probably process the code myself later when I have a scientific calculator (and spare time) handy.
Meanwhile can anyone tell me, are the numbers straight up binary?
Or are they also run thru an ASCII table conversion?
Parity bit (Error correction) present?

Garuda
04-17-2014, 05:24 PM
I'll probably process the code myself later when I have a scientific calculator (and spare time) handy.
Meanwhile can anyone tell me, are the numbers straight up binary?
Or are they also run thru an ASCII table conversion?
Parity bit (Error correction) present?

There actually was a whole discussion about that, back at OMF, after it was pointed out that at the time this happened, 8 bit bytes weren't really used yet. Still, the whole sequence only makes sense if read as 8bit ASCII.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 05:40 PM
They are almost certainly 8 bit binary ASCII as they most match incredibly well. The binary contains errors though.
These pages are already on the net but thought out of consistency should do the whole load.

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 07:21 PM
Page 4
01010101010011110101
01010101001101
Crossed out in notebook (0001001?01001111)
01000110_01001111
01010010010100000100
1100010000010100
111001000101010101
00010000010101
0010_01011001
0100000101000
10001010110010
0000101001110
000111001000
100100001

Longeyes
04-17-2014, 07:22 PM
Page 5 only the following
01000101

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:07 AM
Pg 6
001100100110110_0011
0111_00110110_00110011
0011000_1_001101
1100110111_0100
111000111000001
11001_00110001
00110001_00110
111001101110011
011000111
000_01010111
001100110011
0100_00111000
001_1000000
11000000110010

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:13 AM
Pg 7
0011001110110010
0100111000110001
00110001_00110001
0011100000
110100001100
1101101010011
011000110111
0101011100110
01000111001
00111001001
10111

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:19 AM
Pg 8
001101110011100(0)
001100110011
0110_0100
1110_00110011
001100010011
0001_00110011
001100010011
0110_00110100
00111_00101000
101
As in previous posts the 0 in brackets should be included but in this case was an overwritten 1

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:37 AM
Pg 9

11001000110101
001101100011
10000011
0100_00_11
01_01_01
0(0)1110
001100
01_0011
0_001

In this case the 0 in brackets is very tiny almost a 1

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:47 AM
Pg 10

0011000100110100
001101110011000000
11000_10011010100
110000_00110101
010100_1100110111
00110101001100010
0110110011011100
11000_001101000
0110011
0101011100110011
0011011000

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:50 AM
Pg 11

00110
11100110001
0011000000
110000_0011
0110_0011
0011_0011
0010_010001010
0110011

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 09:54 AM
Pg 12

001101110011000
1001100010011
000000110001
00111001001
101010100111
0_00110100
00110101
00110011001
101110011
00(1)(0)

1 and 0 not contested here just in bold

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 02:14 PM
Pg 13

0011001000111000
0011_000101000
101

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 02:22 PM
Looks like a page as been ripped out here

Pg 14
In distinct text hidden by old page stub then


0100010101011001
01000_101
01010011
0100111101000110
010110010100111101
01010101010010
010001010101100101
000_0_10_10
1010011

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 02:36 PM
Pg 15 some of this hard to read

0100111101010010
0100100(1/0 prob 1) 01000111
0100100(1 probably just a blemish)101001110
0011010100110010
0(0 - could be two 1's)1100000111001
00110100_00110010
00110101_00110011
0011001001001110
001100010011
001100110001
001100110011
0001_0011
0010_00110110
011100101010111

Longeyes
04-24-2014, 02:42 PM
Pg 16 last page also not a great scan.

010011110101001001
00100101000
111_010010010100
1110_0101100101000
10(1 - hard to make out) 01000001010100
1000111000001100
01_00110000
00110000

All done sorry for delay have double checked each binary digit as they have gone in.
Let the analysis begin!
Note include the numbers in brackets when putting through an binary /ASCII converter. But it may be possible to get other readings better than those done for Jim Penniston by using a bit of guess work.

majicbar
04-24-2014, 09:13 PM
Page 5 only the following
01000101
I find it interesting that page 5 is of such a short code segment. I take it that the UFO, even if it is "ours" from the future UFO seems appropriate, has divided it's communication into two parts, the first of a higher order than the latter. I find it of interest too that such a long string of numbers was communicated into Penniston's mind and it was not totally scrambeled and forgotten, what in one's mind allows this kind of "photographic memory", better term?. I don't know what to make of the breaks in the strings on the page, why does a break occur where it does?

Thanks to Longeyes for the posting.

Lee
04-24-2014, 11:14 PM
Excellent! Cheers, Longeyes! (I really can't thank you enough for taking the time to transcribe the code. It must've been very time consuming?)

You make some very good points, Majic. I'd definitely like to see some independent analysis of the code. Gonna have a look myself too, I've been waiting for the complete binary since we started the thread at OMF. :cool: The coordinates are definitely worth taking a second look at and playing around with, Hybrazil never quite sat right with me either.

Here's an online Binary to text converter - http://www.binaryhexconverter.com/binary-to-ascii-text-converter

Longeyes
04-25-2014, 12:05 AM
Well page 16 with the hard to make out 1
Comes up with exactly what is in the book
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Lee
04-25-2014, 12:26 AM
Yes, I got the same too.

Now trying page one, but it looks like it needs to be broken in to 8-bit segments.

I'm interested to see what happens with some of the vaguer sections, such as the coordinates. How much is accurate code and how much is guess work, etc.

Doc
04-25-2014, 06:47 AM
Victor's List streamed this roundup on the Rendlesham Forest Case: (Read it all at the link below. It is a very detailed review of the case.)

Victor The Sky Wizard To

Apr 19 at 8:00 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608082/Why-I-believe-aliens-landed-Suffolk-forest-No-Nick-Pope-isnt-UFO-fantasist-hes-ex-Ministry-Defence-expert-compelling-dossier-evidence.html

:-X
"Why I Believe ALIENS Landed in a Suffolk Forest!": No, Nick Pope Isn't a UFO Fantasist, He's an Ex-Ministry of Defence Expert With a Compelling Dossier of Evidence!

MoD expert has worked with the two closest witnesses -- both servicemen
-- of the unexplained phenomenon in 1980
One recalls seeing a metal craft that could travel at 'impossible' speed
Radiation levels in the area were measured at well above the norm
The two witnesses wrote logs about the incident which they claim were
later disappeared as part of a cover-up
Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston touched the craft and claims to have
'downloaded' a message from the future in binary code

The 'ship' was seen on three consecutive nights, including by the officer
who was second-in-command of the base

By Tony Rennell (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Tony+Rennell), Daily Mail Online, Published: Updated: 23:24 EST, Saturday 19 April 2014
Something eerie stirred in the Suffolk forest. Bright lights were flashing red, blue, white
and yellow, piercing the darkness just beyond the perimeter of the U.S. Air Force base.
Airman John Burroughs, on patrol in the early hours, went to investigate, the hairs on
his arms standing on end with the static electricity that suddenly filled the air, his radio
mysteriously malfunctioning.

Ahead, a small clearing among the trees shone as bright as day . . .

And so began a mystery that has lasted a third of a century, the truth of what took place
remaining as elusive now as it was on that Boxing Day in 1980. Did an alien space ship
land, as the world’s UFO-hunters, ET-watchers and X-Files fans have always been
desperate to believe?

https://us-mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f14303970%5fAGJ2w0MAAC WAU1KPlAAAAKWcE%2f4&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=yahoomail
+5

Nick Pope argues in his book that the 'Rendlesham Forest Incident' begs more questions than the
establishment has so far answered


Or, this being a strategic base for American front-line fighter planes, was there an accident
involving some clandestine Cold War super-weapon, ruthlessly covered up by the military?
Or was that strange glow just a trick of light and atmospherics from the beam of a
lighthouse on the East Coast a few miles away? Or a case of mass hysteria, perhaps?
Or just a Christmas hoax by bored American servicemen a long way from home?

Flights of fancy run wild in any direction you want when it comes to what history has
dubbed the Rendlesham Forest Incident — and has done since 1983 when the News Of
The World revealed the mysterious happenings in a front-page story headlined "UFO
lands in Suffolk — and it’s official" and quoted a top-secret report from one of the base
commanders as its source.

Official denials and obfuscation followed. "Fabrication," screamed the Ministry of
Defence. "Nothing of defence interest in the alleged sightings. No question of any
contact with 'alien beings'."
A local forester put forward the lighthouse theory, which was latched onto by other
newspapers eager to rubbish a rival’s scoop. And so the whole affair descended into
a chaos of claim and counter-claim — Close Encounter fanatics on one side, sceptics
on the other, and the twain never likely to meet.

https://us-mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f14303970%5fAGJ2w0MAAC WAU1KPlAAAAKWcE%2f4&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=yahoomail


Lt. Col. Charles Halt

Longeyes
04-25-2014, 09:27 AM
Page 14 I get

EYESOFYOUREYBS

Some of the spaces do seem to donate the start of 8bit segments and so do the pages seem to start with the first character in an 8 bit code. There are only two answers for this as far as I can make out.

1) The person writing them down was making it up and wasn't clever enough to hide his tracks. It would be natural to then start a new page, leave spaces between characters. Or
2) The code came into Penniston's mind in 8 bit chunks which he somehow picked up on or were inherent in the message itself.

The place of origin does not correspond to Hy Brasil.
If you are communicating locations in pure text and number form, without any decimal places to give people an idea of where the ten's hundred's etc are is to give every place to the same number of decimal places.
The only way you get Hy Brasil is by taking the latitude to 6 decimal places (13.1...) and the long by seven decimal places.
This is nonsense if you take both to 7 decimal places you get 1.13,52.9. - Woodbridge Town Hall.
The problem with that is all the other co-ords seem to be to six decimal places?!
Maybe the point of origin needed to be more accurate. That's really I'm really interested in double checking them.
Hy Brasil - mythical place unknown location
Or Woodbridge Town Hall with unerring accuracy?!!

That's one thing that stands in Penniston's favour he has doggedly persued this analysis of the code. If he made it up himself he surely couldn't be that stupid.

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:04 AM
Hope you guys ready for this spent far too much time pawing over this but think I have reached some interesting conclusions and spotted a few new things about the code which you hopefully should prove interesting

Will post workings first as otherwise the conclusion will be lost.
I used the following two 8 bit binary to ASCII converters
http://home.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/
And this one is specifically UTF8. Commonly no used by most things including the web.
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/cgi/unicode-decoder/utf8-decoder

Firstly the scans in the book are not in order which doesn't help but I've left them as a I first posted and in the final analysis reorder them as need be

Page 1 in scans back of Encounter at Rendlesham Page 4 in the translation of the code.
Everything in the {} is the direct translation of the preceding byte (8 bit binary chunk)

01000110{F}01001110{N/O}1( Extra Digit here either 1 or 0)01010
101{U}01010010{R}010101
00{T}01001000{H}01000011{C}
01001111{O}01001111{O}0100
0100{D}01001001{I}01001
11(N)01000001{A}01010100{T}
01000101{E}01000011{C}010
01111{O}01001110{N}01010
100{T}01001001{I}01001110{N}
010101(0)1{U}01001111{O}01010
100{T}01010101{U}0101000
1{Q}01010111{W}0
01000011{C}011000101{E prob 2ND 1 is in error}
01010000{P}0101001
0{R}_01000010{B}01000
101{E}01000110{F}010011
11{O}01010010{R}
F(O/N)URTH COODINATE CONTINUO TUQWCEPR BEFOR

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:08 AM
Page 2 scan original Page 1

01000101{E}_0101100(0){X}
01010000){P}_01001100){L}
01001111){O}01010010{R}
010000001{A? Only if one of the 0 is deleted}01010100{T}0
1001001{I}01001111{O}0100
1110{N}_01001111{O}01000
111{G}_01001000{H}_010101
01{U}01001101{M}01000001{A}
01001110{N}_01001001{I}
01010100{T}_01011001{Y}
0011011_0{6}011011
0{6}011011{Quite what this 3 byte area means is open to debate see below*}_00111000{8}
00110001{1}_00110000{0}
00110000{0}
Adding two more binary digits *01101100=l, 01101101=m, 01101110=n, 01011011=[,00110110=6
Seeing that so many 8 bit codes finish at the end of a line is it not more likely that the error lies there. For example
{Y}
0011011{6}_0011011{Extra character in here 00110111=7, 00110110=6, 00110101=5,00110011=3, 00111011=;)
0011011{Another in this phrase - same variables}

And seeing that at the end of the message the original year was 8100 it makes a lot more sense to deduce it as a date.
6;7 8100 For instance 7th June in the US or 6th July the rest of the world depending what format they were using.

EXPLOR(A)TIONOGHUMANITY6(5/6/7/;/3)(5/6/7/;/3)8100

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:11 AM
Page 3

00110101{5}00110010{2}
00110000{0}00111001{9}0011
0100{4}00110010{2}0011
0101{5}00110011{3}0011
0010{2}_01001110{N}
00110001{1}00110011{3}00
110001{1}00110011{3}
00110001{1}00110010{2}0011
0110{6}_00111011{;}_0101
0111{W}_01000011{C}0100
1111{O}_0_1001110{N}
01010100{T}_0100
1001{I}0010100{)}1110 {Carried over to next page This segment starting 1110 in UTF-8 refers to a 3 byte sequence ie the next three 8 bit chunks stand for a character}
ie There are hundreds of these that this could be and what the allocation for that is in the year 8100 is anyone’s guess. ie 11100000 10100100 10010101 is क. Full table of all UTF8 characters here:
http://http://dev.networkerror.org/utf8/


520942532N1313126;WCONTI)

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:21 AM
Page 4

0101{The carried over start 1110 denotes start of 3 byte character}0101010{ }0111101{End of this phrase} 01

010101{U}01001101{M}
Crossed out in notebook (0001001?01001111{O})
01000110{F)_01001111{O}
01010010{R}01010000{P}0100
1100{L}01000001{A}0100
1110{N}01000101{E}010101
00{T}01000001{A}0101
0010{R}_01011001{Y}
01000001{A}01000
100{D}01010110{V}010
00001{A}01001110{N}
000111001000
100100001{ There are three characters missing here to make full bytes?)

(?)UMFORPLANETARYADVAN(???)

Page 5 only the following
01000101{E}
E

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:27 AM
Pg 6
0011001{Needs an extra character here either a zero 0011001(0)=2 or a 1 0011001(1)=3}00110110{6}_0011
0111{7}_00110110{6}_00110011{3}
0011000_1{1}_001101
11{7}00110111{7}_0100
1110{N}00111000{8}001
11001{9}_00110001{1}
00110001{1}_00110
111{7}00110111{7}0011
0110{6}00111
000{8}_01010111{W}
00110011{3}0011
0100{4}_00111000{8}
001_10000{0}00
110000{0}00110010{2}

This page gives us:
(2/3)6763177N89117768W348002

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:27 AM
Pg 7
00110011{3}10110010{Gives a squared sign assuming this is a number it would start with 00 giving us 00110010 =2}
01001110{N}00110001{1}
00110001{1}_00110001{1}
00111000{8}00
110100{4}001100
11{3}0110101{Missing character here most likely 0 to donate start of number 00110101=5}0011
0110{6}00110111{7}
01010111{W}00110
010{2}00111001{9}
00111001{9}001
10111{7}

Page gives us:
32N111843567W2997

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:28 AM
Pg 8
00110111{7}0011100(0){8}
00110011{3}0011
0110{6}_0100
1110{N}_00110011{3}
00110001{1}0011
0001{1}_00110011{3}
00110001{1}0011
0110{6}_00110100{4}
00111_001{9}01000
101{E}

Gives:
7836N31131649E

Pg 9

110010{carried over}00110101{5}
00110110{6}0011
1000{8}0011
0100{4}_00_11
01_01_{5}01
0(0)1110{N}
001100
01{1}_0011
0_001{1}

Gives:
56845N11

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:29 AM
Pg 10

00110001{1}00110100{4}
00110111{7}00110000{0}00
11000_1{1}00110101{5}00
110000{0}_00110101{5}
010100_11{S}00110111{7}
00110101{5}00110001{1}0
0110110{6}0110111{7? Only if there is a missing 0 7=00110111}00
11000{0}_00110100{4}0
0110011{3}
01010111{W}00110011{3}
0011011{6}000

Gives:
14701505S7516(7?)043W36

Pg 11

00110
111{7}00110001{1}
00110000{0}00
110000{0}_0011
0110{6}_0011
0011{3}_0011
0010{2}_01000101{E}0
0110011{3}

Gives:
7100632E3

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:31 AM
Pg 12

00110111{7}0011000
1{1}00110001{1}0011
0000{0}00110001{1}
00111001{9}001
10101{5}0100111
0{N}_00110100{4}
00110101{5}
00110011{3}001
10111{7}0011
00(1)(0){2}

Gives:
7110195N45372

Pg 13

00110010{2}00111000{8}
0011_0001{1}01000
101{E}

Gives:
281E

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:32 AM
Pg 14

01000101{E}01011001{Y}
01000_101{E}
01010011{S}
01001111{O}01000110{F}
01011001{Y}01001111{O}01
010101{U}01010010{R}
01000101{E}01011001{U}01
000_0_10_1{ E? There is an extra character in here – 01000101=E but 01000010=B}|0
1010011{S}

Gives:
EYESOFYOUREY(E/B)S

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:33 AM
Pg 15

01001111{O}01010010{R}
0100100(1/0 prob 1) {I} 01000111{G}
0100100(1 probably just a blemish)1{I}01001110{N}
00110101{5}00110010{2}
0(0 - could be two 1's)11000{Indistinct here 00110000=0 but where is the extra 0? }00111001{9}
00110100{4}_00110010{2}
00110101{5}_00110011{3}
00110010{2}01001110{N}
00110001{1}0011
0011{3}00110001{1}
00110011{3}0011
0001{1}_0011
0010{2}_00110110{6}
0111001{00111001=9 there is a missing character here}01010111{W}

Gives:
ORIGIN52(0)942532N1313126(9)W

Pg 16 last page also not a great scan.

01001111{O}01010010{R}01
001001{I}01000
111{G}_01001001{I}0100
1110{N}_01011001{Y}01000
10(1 - hard to make out){E}01000001{A}010100
10{E}00111000{8}001100
01{1}_00110000{0}
00110000{0}

Gives:
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:35 AM
What I get from all the previous analysis

F(O/N)URTH COODINATE CONTINUO TUQWCEPR BEFOR – Page 1
EXPLOR(A)TIONOGHUMANITY6(5/6/7/;/3)(5/6/7/;/3)8100 – Page 2
520942532N1313126;WCONTI) – Page 3
(?)UMFORPLANETARYADVAN(???) - Page 4
E – Page 5
(2/3)6.763177N89.117768 W 348002- Page 6
32N111843567W2997 - Page 7
7836N31131649E – Page 8
56845N11 – Page 9
14701505S7516(7?)043W36 – Page 10
7100632E3 – Page 11
7110195N45372 – Page 12
281E – Page 13
EYESOFYOUREY(E/B)S – Page 14
ORIGIN52(0)942532N1313126(9)W – Page 15
ORIGIN YEAR 8100 – Page 16

The Book Interpretation of the Code for reference:

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

majicbar
05-03-2014, 10:40 AM
Page 3

00110101{5}00110010{2}
00110000{0}00111001{9}0011
0100{4}00110010{2}0011
0101{5}00110011{3}0011
0010{2}_01001110{N}
00110001{1}00110011{3}00
110001{1}00110011{3}
00110001{1}00110010{2}0011
0110{6}_00111011{;}_0101
0111{W}_01000011{C}0100
1111{O}_0_1001110{N}
01010100{T}_0100
1001{I}0010100{)}1110 {Carried over to next page This segment starting 1110 in UTF-8 refers to a 3 byte sequence ie the next three 8 bit chunks stand for a character}
There are hundreds of these that this could be and what the allocation for that is in the year 8100 is anyone’s guess
http://dev.networkerror.org/utf8/?start=4100&end=4200&cols=4&show_uni_int=on&show_uni_hex=on&show_html_ent=on&show_raw_hex=on&show_raw_bin=on

520942532N1313126;WCONTI)I have been giving the issue of 8100 as having two different contexts. In the first pages, 8100 when used as a distance at 66.6 degrees from the City Hall in Bentwaters, takes one to the runway threshold for the runway at Bentwaters airbase, which is just spitting distance from the nuclear weapon storage bunkers at Bentwaters. These nuclear bunkers at Bentwaters were the location of UFO activity in the following night with supposedly action that affected the nuclear weapons according to a report on Linda Moulton Howe's Earthfiles.com.

At the end of the pages in Penniston's notebook. the decoding says explicitly, "ORIGIN YEAR 8100". While this seems to be wildly coincidental, coincidences do happen. The ORIGIN YEAR does not refer to "when" the craft is from, the word ORIGIN is rather I believe a navigation index for stellar navigation. The craft would likely to be able to travel both backward and forward in time, to do so it would need to have a navigation set of stars in it's memory banks, then to travel to a waypoint in time, the stars would be calculated to have traveled some angle from their position in that origin year of 8100. The craft would come up with a starmap and compare that map to the stars where it is supposed to go.
(This is a similar process used in some of our cruise missiles.) Remember that in 8100 the Sun and the Earth will have moved from where they are now, along with all the stars around us, time travel also requires that travel to a new point in space is also required. It would be a 4-D problem to calculate backwards to come up with a starmap for 1980. Even if the craft were say from 3500, knowing how to calculate the stars from a ORIGIN YEAR 8100 would allow for travel into the future, one might have even sent a craft into the future to get those stellar positions for greater accuracy for travel forward in time, as well as backwards.

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:55 AM
Final Analysis to come run out of time for today sorry guys. Will post rest on Monday

Longeyes
05-03-2014, 10:56 AM
Hi Majic
I reckon it could be a date makes a heap of sense

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 09:30 AM
Hi Guys noticed on error in my transcribing and therefore analysis of page 12.
Fixes in red

Pg 12

00110111{7}0011000
1{1}00110001{1}0011
0000{0}00110001{1}
00111001{9}001
10101{5}0100111
0{N}_00110010{2}
00110101{5}
00110011{3}001
10111{7}0011
00(1)(0){2}

1 and 0 not contested here just in bold
7110195N45372

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 09:32 AM
The page ordering in the book is not correct. But assuming they were working from the original and are correct 000 is carried over from page 10 to start of page 9
we have

Pg 9

(000 from end of page 10 assuming Book analysis numbering is correct )110010{This means here there is an extra character 00110010 =2 }00110101{5}
00110110{6}0011
1000{8}0011
0100{4}_00_11
01_01_{5}01
0(0)1110{N}
001100
01{1}_0011
0_001{1}

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 09:37 AM
So here is my best interpretation of the results

EXPLOR(A)TIONO(F)HUMANITY 6th July/ June 7th 8100
52.0942532N 1.313126(9)WCONTI)
(?)UMFORPLANETARYADVAN (???)
F(O)URTH COODINATE CONTINUO TUQWCEPR BEFORE

(3)6.763177N 89.117768W (Mississippi River on State Border)
34.800232N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.16(7)043W (Nasca Lines )
36.(2)56845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portara, Naxos)
EYESOFYOUREYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 1.3131269W
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Book interpretation

EXPLORATION OF HUMANITY 666 8100
52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
CONTINUOUS FOR PLANETARY ADVAN???
FOURTH COODINATE CONTINUOT UQS CbPR BEFORE

26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize)
34.800272N 111.843567W (Sedona, Arizona)
29.977836N 31.131649E (Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt)
14.701505S 75.167043W (Nazca Lines in Peru)
36.256845N 117.100632E (Tai Shan Qu, China)
37.110195N 25.372281E (Portal at Temple of Apollo in Naxos, Greece)
EYES OF YOUR EYES
ORIGIN 52.0942532N 13.131269W (Hy Brasil)
ORIGIN YEAR 8100

Major differences in red

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 10:11 AM
I have assumed that the code is genuine and not a construction by Jim Penniston


1 - Decimal Places

All positions are without decimal places. The only way to transmit standardized location data is to always use the same number of decimal places when giving them both at the source and when decoding them at the target end.
They strange thing about the code is that the second line of the message 52.0942532N 1.313126(9)WCONTI) and the 'ORIGIN' line 52.0942532N 1.3131269W appear to use 7 decimal places there is no coordinate 520.942532N. Hence why the latitude must surely be 1.3131269W
This is however different from all the other co-ordinates given in the translation they all appear with only 6 decimal places. Why this is so is a complete mystery but perhaps the return location needs to be more accurate. That 52.0942532N 1.3131269E is exactly Woodbridge Town Hall cannot be ignored. The chances of that being a coincidence are millions to one. I would argue that that an error occurred in the craft causing the W to be interpreted as an E.
52.0942532N 1.3131269W gives us the location where the time machine set off. Just of the A361 nr Banbury in Oxfordshire not Hy Brasil.

2 - The Date

Seems to me that it is much more likely seeing that the final line gives 'ORIGIN YEAR 8100' That the
'8100' in the first line is a repetition of the date. The chances of this being a coincidence are 10,000 to 1. And I would argue that prehaps 6th July/ June 7th 8100 is the likely date the craft set off. 'F(O)URTH COODINATE CONTINUO' more than likely points towards time travel.

3 - The First Listed Location

There is a missing character here i've gone for this 3 ((3)6.763177N 89.117768W )(Mississippi River on State Border) rather than 2 (26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize) as it the later is in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and the later is smack bang on a state line between Kentucky and Missouri, next to where the Battle of Belmount occurred.

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 12:19 PM
Now for some detailed analysis of the actual target locations themselves.
It would seem logical that by having a look at all the locations and seeing if there is anything in common we could discover why they where heading there.

Location 1 - 36.763177N 89.117768W Mississippi River on State Border between Kentucky and Missouri.

This is right between to the location of US Civil War 'Battle of Belmont' which occurred in 1861. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belmont and Columbus Belmont State Park. It is right in the middle of the Mississippi River.
Interestingly the state border follows the old path of the river at this point.
It is also near the centre of the Mississippi Mound building culture
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mississippian_cultures_HRoe_2010.jpghttp://
It is really close to
Towosahgy state historic site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towosahgy_State_Historic_Sit
and south of
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Mounds

Location 2 - 34.800232N 111.843567W Sedona, Arizona

In the desert on another river bend this time a dried out one. Have look at it on Google Earth. There are no really obvious features around here it is North of the Montezuma Castle and the Verde Vally Archaeological Sites( on UNESCO’s World Heritage List) and South of Palatki Heritage Site.

Location 3 - 29.977836N 31.131649E Giza Egypt

This is right bang in the middle of the Giza Pyramid Site which the Great Pyramid the Sphinx. Needs no exposition. A UNESCO site.

Location 4 - 14.701505S 75.167043W Nasca Lines

Again need little explanation only I noted this for the Wikipedia entry...

In 1985, the archaeologist Johan Reinhard published archaeological, ethnographic, and historical data demonstrating that worship of mountains and other water sources predominated in Nazca religion and economy from ancient to recent times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines

Contrary to popular conspiracy beliefs they weren't actually directed at the heavens but mountains. This is to the north and east of the centre of the Nazca Line Region.

Location 5 - 36.256845N 117.100632E - Tai Shan, China

This is on another UNESCO site on the slopes Mt Tai Shan. This in the middle of another temple complex and area.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/437

The landscape of Mount Taishan as one of the five sacred mountains in traditional China is a unique artistic achievement. The eleven gates, the fourteen archways, the fourteen kiosks and the four pavilions, which are scattered along the flight of 6,660 steps
Interestingly there are 6660 step to the summit and the whole site has thousands of rock carvings. This site is linked to the Jade Emperor a very important figure in Chinese especially Taoist mythology.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Emperor
Also it is one of the oldest sites of worship in China
For over 3,000 years, Chinese emperors of various dynasties have made pilgrimages to Taishan for sacrificial and other ceremonial purposes. from UNESCO page.

Location 6 - 37.110195N 25.372281E Portara, Naxos

This right bang on the location of the Portara gates.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/naxos-portara

The Portara stands on Palatia, which was once a hill but is now a separate little island connected to Naxos by a causeway. (The Mediterranean has risen significantly since ancient times.)

The Portara is the entrance to an unfinished temple that faces directly toward Delos, Apollo's birthplace. For this reason most scholars believe it was dedicated to Apollo, but some think it was built in honor of Dionysus, who was worshipped on Naxos Island.

Whichever god it was dedicated to, the temple was begun about 530 BC by the tyrant Lygdamis, who said he would make Naxos's buildings the highest and most glorious in Greece.

Also more about Naxos

according to mythology, the wine god Dionysus came from Naxos and...
Many myths in Greece involve Naxos as some point. Zeus, the highest god, was born on Crete, but grew up on Naxos. The people of Naxos used to worship him, and a temple was made to his honour at the mountain Za (Zeus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxos_Island

According to Greek mythology, the young Zeus was raised in a cave on Mt. Zas ("Zas" meaning "Zeus"). Homer mentions "Dia"; literally the sacred island "of the Goddess". Karl Kerenyi explains (speaking as if he were an ancient Greek):

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 01:17 PM
It very hard to say what these locations all have in common but rivers and mountains or similar structures like pyramids and mounds seem to be a theme.
Portals or gate ways could also be another theme, the 11 gates on the path to the top of Mt Tai Shan, The Portara and Cheops has always been thought of as a portal to the after world.
Another theory could be dwelling places of the Gods, the mountains around the Nazca Lines, Naxos and it's connection with Zeus and Mt Tai and it's worship.
If anyone can find any other connections please post them.

majicbar
05-05-2014, 02:25 PM
Thanks for all that effort Longeyes, it really expands the discussion. As to location 1 I am thinking the most relevant feature is the ancient mound builders complex. Ancient Egyptian contact with the mound builders ties location 3 to the narative, nexus, relationship, however it flows from here. The other locations may have something that had resulted with alien contact in ancient times. Could the craft be an effort to probe that possible contact? It is interesting as you point out that the first coordinate uses a seven digit resolution but the others are only six digits in resolution. If the probe is going back in time fine resolution might not be needed for these othere sites because they are end points, where the first instance of Woodbridge is a waypoint and not a destination endpoint. I am convinced that this first instance with Woodbridge as a way point that the course from there is 8100 meters at 66.6 degrees. In that that leads one to the runway threshold of Woodbridge airbase can not be just by chance.

If you put WCONTI into Google search engine you get a return for a Microsoft computer repapir program. The UFO probe seemed to be looking to Penniston for programming information to repair itself, like needing some kind of information. If Penniston's mind were asking questions, the probes response might have helped it complete that repair, and it might have given the other locations to show Penniston what it was looking to correct. The machine had probably mistaken Penniston for a programming technician. I attribute a moderate level of artificat intelligence in this machine.

Longeyes
05-05-2014, 03:26 PM
I'm with you on the idea that the machine was some kind of drone and that it was reporting back to Sgt Penniston as it may have been damaged or just given a status report.
But the '666' is a wild guess, by Penniston's translator, at the true meaning of that segment. Two characters are missing here ..00110110110110011011.. 6=00110110. You can get two sixes in there but statistically is it highly unlikely to be 666 hence my '6(5/6/7/;/3)(5/6/7/;/3)' interpretation I think Esc is also a possible simple alternative which could fit. Anything is a guess as we don't have the exact code. I can't find a WCONTI reference anywhere online.

majicbar
05-05-2014, 08:59 PM
I'm with you on the idea that the machine was some kind of drone and that it was reporting back to Sgt Penniston as it may have been damaged or just given a status report.
But the '666' is a wild guess, by Penniston's translator, at the true meaning of that segment. Two characters are missing here ..00110110110110011011.. 6=00110110. You can get two sixes in there but statistically is it highly unlikely to be 666 hence my '6(5/6/7/;/3)(5/6/7/;/3)' interpretation I think Esc is also a possible simple alternative which could fit. Anything is a guess as we don't have the exact code. I can't find a WCONTI reference anywhere online.A compass would not have to have eight place ASCII, one could use seven as well as all compass readings would be numerical and seven bits work. There are twenty one bits so three digit compass reading would fit. The compass would have one decimal imputed in it's construction which allows for a compass rose of 3600 parts.

There are hundreds of references to WCONTI, which stands for Windows continuity, which are programs to repair broken segments from corrupted or crashed hard drives. I find it interesting that thousands of years in the future mankind would still be using Windows, but maybe in name only. Basic programming today is fundamentally a continuation of DOS programming which was itself an adaption of seven, then eight bit binary coding. Basic is a simple but highly capable coding language that is easily handeled by a simple processor. Todays higher end languages and CPUs are really matrixes of those same simple systems but much faster and more complex.

Longeyes
05-06-2014, 12:02 AM
Why are all the other numbers not in 7 bit ASCII? The whole thing seems to be in 8 bit. It is unlikely a machine would swap in between bytes.

Gaps in the code

Another thing I haven't mentioned yet is if you look at the page by page analysis how often there are gaps between the 8 bit segments and how often they finish at the end of each line. This isn't coincidence either the person writing the code was cribbing the 8-bit characters or in some way knew the end of each raster. Maybe the gaps were also part of the code? Only Jim can answer that question.

That would make it possible that your theory is correct. But for another reason unlikely - error checking. If there is an error in the transmitted code and it is all in 8-bit code you can easily find the errors. Mix the two and it becomes impossible.
Majicbar could you Pm a couple of links to WCONTI?

majicbar
05-06-2014, 12:38 AM
Why are all the other numbers not in 7 bit ASCII? The whole thing seems to be in 8 bit. It is unlikely a machine would swap in between bytes.

Gaps in the code

Another thing I haven't mentioned yet is if you look at the page by page analysis how often there are gaps between the 8 bit segments and how often they finish at the end of each line. This isn't coincidence either the person writing the code was cribbing the 8-bit characters or in some way knew the end of each raster. Maybe the gaps were also part of the code? Only Jim can answer that question.

That would make it possible that your theory is correct. But for another reason unlikely - error checking. If there is an error in the transmitted code and it is all in 8-bit code you can easily find the errors. Mix the two and it becomes impossible.
Majicbar could you Pm a couple of links to WCONTI?

I will post in this series links to some of the WCONTI links I have found.

The reason that there may be a mix of seven and eight bits is that the machine's CPU was designed to only accept either seven or eight bit data elements. I remember on of the first ESA Arriane rockets failing for the lack of a comma which ran on an instruction beyond the number of bits and caused the rocket to fault and shut down it's motor. Designing say a compass to accept only seven bits the excess or shortage of code acts as a "check sum" to verify accurate loading in the navigation computer. Obvoiusly I am forced to speculate because I have no firsthand information from those who designed or built this machine. But I have a fair understanding of design of CPUs that are used in such applications and the programs that program them to operate.

majicbar
05-06-2014, 01:27 AM
I have forgotten the search term that I put into Google search engine that gave me WCONTIG programs but I do find those which are WinContig programs.

http://wincontig.mdtzone.it/en/

http://www.techspot.com/downloads/4616-wincontig.html

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/download/WinContig,0301-22224.html

http://wincontig.en.softonic.com/

http://www.allerrorsclean.com/filew/wconfig.exe.html

There is no telling how widely the drift in language will be thousands of years in the future. It may even be that the programming is left in an understandable english because future programming became stalled for some reason: a massive dieoff of humans, or perhaps alien, or robot takeovers?

Lee
05-06-2014, 08:58 PM
Greatwork, Longeyes!

I'm really enjoying this discussion, some nice 'out of the box' thinking from both Longeyes and majicbar. :cool:

Nick Pope posted a short article on the topic a few days ago. Here is a choice excerpt, which seems to resonate with this thread:

"To some people’s surprise, I’ve been cautious about the Rendlesham Code and reluctant to leap to conclusions. I think people are coming at the problem from a very anthropocentric viewpoint and my government training has taught me to be wary of obvious solutions, which can often be misleading – sometimes because that’s the intention, e.g. in the shadowy world of counter-intelligence! Sometimes, people see what they want to see, and the list of ‘sacred sites’ in the Rendlesham Code, for example, reads just a little bit too much like a New Age holiday wish-list for me. It’s all a little too clichéd.

If there’s a message here, my guess is that it’s buried much deeper in the code. A message within a message, perhaps. If I still worked for the Ministry of Defence I would have run the Rendlesham Code through a GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters – the UK equivalent of the NSA) supercomputer. But this option was no longer open to me, though pre-submitting the book to the US and the UK governments for security clearance doubtless gave the authorities a chance to examine the code prior to publication." - http://ufodigest.com/article/hy-brasil-0501

We may not have access to supercomputers, but we do have internet forums and interested people with all manner of expertise in different fields. If Nick Pope is correct, then we may just read the solution to the puzzle in this very thread... :D

Lee
05-06-2014, 09:10 PM
I don't know if there is any relevance here, but one thing that keeps popping into my mind is Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods/Orion Mystery. Specifically his work with the Precession of the Equinoxes and Precessional numbers appearing in ancient texts and monuments all over the world. Is 8100 a precessional number, or a future 'age'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsD2Nku6Zqo

Is it possible that the numbers translated as coordinates have multiple levels of meaning? For example; Multiple coordinates(depending on decimal place, as majicbar shows), Dates, (as longeyes suggests), Times, Time periods (or ages, as in Precession), Symbolic, Numerological, Mystical, and/or Mathematical significance.

majicbar
05-06-2014, 10:50 PM
I don't know if there is any relevance here, but one thing that keeps popping into my mind is Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods/Orion Mystery. Specifically his work with the Precession of the Equinoxes and Precessional numbers appearing in ancient texts and monuments all over the world. Is 8100 a precessional number, or a future 'age'?





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsD2Nku6Zqo

Is it possible that the numbers translated as coordinates have multiple levels of meaning? For example; Multiple coordinates(depending on decimal place, as majicbar shows), Dates, (as longeyes suggests), Times, Time periods (or ages, as in Precession), Symbolic, Numerological, Mystical, and/or Mathematical significance.http://www.philipcoppens.com/gelsen99.html

Coppens speech transcript mentions some of the sites in the listings in Penniston's notebook. It is basically in support of the ancient aliens hypothesis, AAH. 8100 BC is listed as the date of the construction of Stonehenge. Another coincidence. But I like the idea that Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods/Orion Mystery fits into this somehow. In the book the "Sirius Mystery", the notion that the Sun has a binary companion would have something to do with the precision of the equinoxes. In doing some research on that I found out that the supposed precision of Mercury cited by Einstein is exactly the same as that of the Earth. If the Sun were a binary, or acting as a binary does, then these two precessions should be the same, it can not be a chance coincidence, there are getting to be too many of them.

Longeyes
05-08-2014, 12:11 AM
I found the location 26.763177N 89.117768W (Caracal, Belize) in Encounters at Rendlesham p241 just checked in it. This is not the grid reference for Caracal, Belize but somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.
16.763177N 89.117768W is apparently another interpretation of the incomplete 1st digit binary that points exactly to Caracal Belize.
The former could be a typo in the book.

Lee
05-08-2014, 07:40 PM
It just goes to show that the coordinates are definitely open to interpretation.

Having said that, the analysis by Joe Luciano is certainly well done and extremely well presented. His website includes all 16 notebook scans along with text versions and lots of analysis, an excellent resource for those interested in the code:

http://www.binarydecoder.info/main.php

Longeyes
05-17-2014, 06:55 PM
Hi Lee

Joe's is pretty much identical to the interpretation in the book.

1185

This guy Red Collie has done another interpretation full explanation here:

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/fringe2014e.html

Lee
05-17-2014, 07:41 PM
Hi longeyes!

Joe is the guy who did the analysis for the Rendlesham book, I thought his site would make a good resource for our members and readers.

Interesting link, thanks for that!

majicbar
06-12-2014, 06:20 PM
Coast to Coast show 06-12-2014, in the second hour, Nick Pope will be discussing their book, "Encounter in Rendelsham Forest" written with John Burroughs and Jim Penniston about the December 1980 incident.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

http://www.nickpope.net/

majicbar
08-02-2014, 01:55 AM
http://www.therendleshamforestincident.com/Home.html

This is a good webpage with all the facts, code and photocopy of the book. It should be a good resource for those with questions.

Longeyes
02-26-2015, 07:06 PM
This has got to be some kind of tipping point John Burroughs is to be compensation for the radiation damage he received from a UFO.

https://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2284&category=Science

February 22, 2015 Albuquerque, New Mexico - Today retired USAF Tech Sgt. John Burroughs and his attorney, Pat Frascogna, from Jackson, Mississippi, announced in a press release the "U. S. Government's De Facto Acknowledgement of the Existence of UFOs." This breakthrough comes with the Veterans Administration finally granting John Burroughs in January 2015 full medical disability for bodily injury in the line of duty when John twice encountered mysterious aerial lights in the U. K.'s Rendlesham Forest on December 26 and 28, 1980, a dense, tall forest growing along RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge...

More on Earthfiles site

majicbar
02-28-2015, 12:12 AM
This has got to be some kind of tipping point John Burroughs is to be compensation for the radiation damage he received from a UFO.

https://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2284&category=Science

February 22, 2015 Albuquerque, New Mexico - Today retired USAF Tech Sgt. John Burroughs and his attorney, Pat Frascogna, from Jackson, Mississippi, announced in a press release the "U. S. Government's De Facto Acknowledgement of the Existence of UFOs." This breakthrough comes with the Veterans Administration finally granting John Burroughs in January 2015 full medical disability for bodily injury in the line of duty when John twice encountered mysterious aerial lights in the U. K.'s Rendlesham Forest on December 26 and 28, 1980, a dense, tall forest growing along RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge...

More on Earthfiles site

Not to be missed, the government has now admitted that the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP/UFOs) are real. Not really disclosure, but this is a real change. Now, will the press notice, or, will the press let it just sit there?

calikid
02-28-2015, 02:52 PM
Not to be missed, the government has now admitted that the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP/UFOs) are real. Not really disclosure, but this is a real change. Now, will the press notice, or, will the press let it just sit there?



Admitting UAP isn't new.
But the question of origins remains
Was it Extra-Terrestrial?
Or simply advanced military, possibly a foreign nation.

If Burroughs is ill from the encounter/in the line of duty, kudos to the VA for stepping up and paying his medical bills.

Longeyes
03-04-2015, 12:05 AM
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/british-ufo-encounter-gave-heart-5266589

story has made mainstream press in UK :cool:

Longeyes
03-08-2015, 10:55 AM
John Burrough's statement reposted from the Justice for the 81st Security Police at Rendlesham Facebook page

The VA's full and final settlement of my claim, on the basis that I was injured on duty by whatever it was that I encountered in Rendlesham Forest, is a welcome development. While it may not be Disclosure in the sense that the UFO community want, and while it may not provide a definitive explanation of the UFO phenomenon, it's certainly an official acknowledgement that I suffered harm as a result of my experience. After years of denial, it's a confirmation of sorts, and it represents the culmination of what's been a 35-year struggle for justice. It's my hope that this will help the other Rendlesham Forest witnesses too. I've discussed this with Senator McCain's office and with my attorney, Pat Frascogna. Pat and I can advise on the process here, and if any of those people genuinely involved in the incident believe that they've suffered physical and/or psychological harm as a result, we're ready to help. If we can stand together on this, and avoid the sorts of personal attacks and bickering that are all too common in ufology, we have a genuine chance to move forward.

The significance of Project Condign in the VA's settlement of my claim cannot be overstated. The bombshell quote that the Rendlesham Forest witnesses had probably been irradiated was the 'smoking gun' that led the VA to settle my claim. Whether by accident or design, the British Government had painted the US Government into a corner by releasing that part of the document. What's surprising is how the mainstream media and the UFO community missed the significance of Project Condign. The final report was released in May 2006, shortly before a wider and ongoing program to declassify and release most of the British Government's UFO files, but few people read beyond the Executive Summary. They missed the reference to the Rendlesham Forest incident. They missed the points about technology acquisition and weaponization. They failed to understand the true significance of what had been released. I don't mean this as a criticism. After all, this was an intelligence study and it was written for a highly specialized audience of scientific and technical intelligence officials, using terminology not familiar to the public. If anyone wants a single document that shows just how seriously governments take UFOs, and that explains the real reasons for secrecy on this subject, this is it.

It's true Condign has been ignored the it's implications are vast. Someone in the media surely can see how important it is.

Longeyes
07-13-2015, 03:50 PM
Awesome news Col Halt has managed to contact radar personnel at the time a get written statements about what they saw.
Backs up the RAF radar contact Nick Pope spoke about and the USAF radar operators found by Robert Hastings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-33447592

majicbar
07-14-2015, 06:20 AM
Awesome news Col Halt has managed to contact radar personnel at the time a get written statements about what they saw.
Backs up the RAF radar contact Nick Pope spoke about and the USAF radar operators found by Robert Hastings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-33447592

So the USAF stance that nothing happened is a lie! Surprise, surprise.

calikid
07-14-2015, 02:04 PM
Awesome news Col Halt has managed to contact radar personnel at the time a get written statements about what they saw.
Backs up the RAF radar contact Nick Pope spoke about and the USAF radar operators found by Robert Hastings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-33447592
There is already testimony on the books (2007 interview) from personnel inside the airfield's control tower.
I found the Hastings interview you mentioned compelling.


ATC Carey said:
It came in from the east, went straight west across the scope and disappeared off the left side. It took maybe four sweeps—each sweep was two or three seconds—to cross it entirely. So it covered 120 miles in [approximately eight to twelve] seconds. In the 15 years I was an air traffic controller, I’d never seen anything travel across the scope that fast.


In addition to noting the Radar target, they had an interesting encounter of their own.
The craft "hovered" mere feet away from the tower control room for a few short minutes, right in front of the men.


ATC Barker said:
When it hovered, I saw it out the window. It was basketball-shaped, and had sort of an orangish glow. Not bright orange, uh, sort of dim, maybe like the full moon would look behind a thin layer of clouds. There seemed to be something across the center of it, lighter-colored shapes like—don’t laugh—like portholes or windows, or even lights, in a row left to right, across its center. Maybe six or eight of them. They were stationary, not moving across the object. But it seemed spherical, not flat like a flying saucer. I couldn’t hear any noise. It wasn’t huge, but I think it was bigger than an airplane. I would say it was maybe twice the size of an F-111.

I guess this "new" testimony is good for radar collaboration.
Confirms the sighting involved physical objects, not some optical illusion.

Often overshadowed by the Penniston story (how can you top TOUCHING a UFO?), a compelling chapter in its own right. See the Hasting interview of Retired USAF Air Traffic Controllers (http://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/02/one-ufo-at-raf-bentwaters-appeared-on.html) Ike Barker & James Carey.

Longeyes
09-18-2015, 08:32 PM
Would like to have heard this Linda Moulton Howe and John Burroughs interview an ex military remote viewer who claims they targeted Bentwaters before the case was general knowledge
http://www.kgraradio.com/lyn-buchanan-on-phenomenon-radio-sep-17th/
Don't know if the show is archived anywhere?

newyorklily
09-18-2015, 08:49 PM
Would like to have heard this Linda Moulton Howe and John Burroughs interview an ex military remote viewer who claims they targeted Bentwaters before the case was general knowledge
http://www.kgraradio.com/lyn-buchanan-on-phenomenon-radio-sep-17th/
Don't know if the show is archived anywhere?
The archives there are only open to members for the first 90 days. After that they are open to the public.
Keep checking on KGRA today. I heard that the show was going to be repeated but I don't know at what time.
It was a very good and interesting show. Lyn Buchanan viewed a lot of what we now talk about regarding Rendelsham Forest but, in 1986 when he did the remote viewing task, little of it was known by the public.
LMH has the drawings and document up at www.earthfiles.com

Sent from my LGLS660 using Tapatalk

Longeyes
09-19-2015, 11:44 AM
Thanks Lily

newyorklily
09-20-2015, 12:25 AM
I just read on Facebook that the interview of Lyn Buchanan discussing the remote view of the Rendelsham Forest Incident will rebroadcast on Sunday morning (9/20), 6:00am EDT, 11:00am UK.

This is definitely worth getting up early for

Sent from my LGLS660 using Tapatalk

majicbar
11-19-2015, 10:48 AM
It is odd I think that the geolocation in the code header in Penniston's code the same kind of "GPS" used in a cruise missile. The degree of specification would allow tye craft to be parked within its own footprint. If the code is for navigation, does that imply that these craft also operate their own "GPS satellite constelation.

Edward
11-19-2015, 11:14 PM
It is odd I think that the geolocation in the code header in Penniston's code the same kind of "GPS" used in a cruise missile. The degree of specification would allow tye craft to be parked within its own footprint. If the code is for navigation, does that imply that these craft also operate their own "GPS satellite constelation.



Or maybe they are using our satellites like in the movie Independence Day for their own global positioning, :p:biggrin2:

Edward

majicbar
11-20-2015, 04:14 AM
Or maybe they are using our satellites like in the movie Independence Day for their own global positioning, :p:biggrin2:

Edward

While this could be true, it would limit their ability to go further back in time to 1972, or so, when the first constellation of GPS became active. If they were to put up thier own GPS constellation earlier than 5,000 B.C.E. they would have a real time travel system.

Fore
11-20-2015, 08:31 AM
Actually I have heard on a report on TV covering 911 a few years ago that the GPS system is intentionally off-set by a little. Supposedly the DOD (or someone like the DOD) do that so any attacks are never quite spot on.

Makes you want to research about GPS systems and their interactions with receivers on the ground to see the inner details. For example, if they use cruise missiles with the GPS system, are these using extra numerical systems to regulate positioning and direction? I know the GPS receivers system (with a little extra math) can figure out an altitude not just the position on the ground.

I wonder if any of those kinds of numerical artifices are found in the data written down and no one noticed it yet?

majicbar
11-20-2015, 09:33 AM
Actually I have heard on a report on TV covering 911 a few years ago that the GPS system is intentionally off-set by a little. Supposedly the DOD (or someone like the DOD) do that so any attacks are never quite spot on.

Makes you want to research about GPS systems and their interactions with receivers on the ground to see the inner details. For example, if they use cruise missiles with the GPS system, are these using extra numerical systems to regulate positioning and direction? I know the GPS receivers system (with a little extra math) can figure out an altitude not just the position on the ground.

I wonder if any of those kinds of numerical artifices are found in the data written down and no one noticed it yet?

According to the literature the accuracy is determined by the encoding in the GPS satellite. This encoding is good enough to provide a one foot resolution when combining 5 or more satellites and having a very good atomic clocks that ballot their results, but this is expensive when doing real time navigation so if money is not a limiting factor you can buy one foot resolution. This would be $100,000 to $200,000 for each reciever. At $10,000 you can get a GPS to the standards of the Rendlesham craft, your cell phone does it for less than $100, but your accuracy is probably 100 feet, or so.

Longeyes
11-20-2015, 09:51 AM
I very much doubt they were using our satellites to work out their location. It won't make any sense if they travelled back further in time. What you do need is an accurate position of Greenwich , the poles are pretty obvious but Greenwich will move over time continental drift, sea levels change?
What I think is more puzzling is that they are using Long and Lat at all.
And why binary? Why not just the characters? Why did Penniston not just get a message in text form?

It tells us quite a bit. They are very familiar with humanity. Penniston claims they are future humans not ETs. It pretty much says this is future human tech. If true what possible reason could they have for looking into the past? Are they trying to change the future? What were they looking for?

aquila
11-20-2015, 10:46 AM
it is obvious that a rendlesham encounter did occur. there are numerous versions of the story on different tv channels. the tv documentaries on the subject appear to be dressed up for popular tv viewing with residual regard for accuracy - some of the material is outright hollywoodish. documentaries are helpful in drawing attention to an actual event or topic. the original encounter reports should be consulted for an indepth analysis of issue.

majicbar
11-21-2015, 02:32 AM
I very much doubt they were using our satellites to work out their location. It won't make any sense if they travelled back further in time. What you do need is an accurate position of Greenwich , the poles are pretty obvious but Greenwich will move over time continental drift, sea levels change?
What I think is more puzzling is that they are using Long and Lat at all.
And why binary? Why not just the characters? Why did Penniston not just get a message in text form?

It tells us quite a bit. They are very familiar with humanity. Penniston claims they are future humans not ETs. It pretty much says this is future human tech. If true what possible reason could they have for looking into the past? Are they trying to change the future? What were they looking for?

What are they looking for? THAT really would seem to be the question that is most vexing. The "rest of the story" in the Rendlesham Forest incident is that if you take the location that is in the code header, then go 66.6 degrees and 8100 meters along that heading you come to the runway apron at Brentwaters Air Base, the runway end that is less than 1000 feet from the ammo bunkers which it turns out to have held a number of nuckear warheads. Other stories of UFO actions that weekend place a UFO over those bunkers beaming a brilliant blue light into those bunkers, supposedly disturbing these nukes which were then taken out of inventory.

My personal thought is that when we made the plutonium in those bombs we made it down and dirty, that possibly a few really exotic atoms were also made, #115?, and it was those atoms that were their objects of interest, that those kinds of atoms are rarely found in the Universe, making their recovery economical and technically easy as unlike anywhere else in the Universe. What they are used for is anyones guess, the possibilities are magical now that I think of it.

Longeyes
11-23-2015, 09:20 AM
I think it must have been the nukes. There is no chance though that they were after 115 it decays in all the forms we know about in millionths of a sec. I think they would have the capability far beyond ours to produce it. Cold fusion processes can be used to convert radioactive elements and transmute elements the Japanese company Mitsubishi heavy industries did some research on this.

Longeyes
11-23-2015, 09:27 AM
Robert Hastings has found another RFI witness
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2015/11/new-bentwaters-ufo-witness-goes-on.html?m=1
Over the past 42 years I have interviewed more than 150 military veterans regarding their involvement in nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents at various bases around the world. My book, UFOs and Nukes Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites, provides a comprehensive summary of their revelations. My website presents excerpts from it, as well as well as interviews with veterans whose experiences were only brought to my attention after the book was published in 2008. Declassified documents verifying the existence of a UFO-nuclear weapons connection are also available for inspection.

A number of those veterans describe UFO incursions at nuclear weapon depots, primarily the many U.S. Air Force Weapons Storage Areas (WSAs) including those at Malmstrom, Loring, Wurtsmith, F.E. Warren, Kirtland and Fairchild AFBs, as well as at the RAF Bentwaters base in England.

Former Air Force personnel who witnessed a UFO presence at Bentwaters, its sister base RAF Woodbridge, and nearby Rendlesham Forest, continue to come forward. In September 2015, I interviewed former Security Policeman (SP) Steven D. Wagner, who not only discovered what appeared to be landing gear impressions in the forest—perhaps even earlier than those reported by former SP Jim Penniston on December 26th—but also witnessed a two-foot diameter spherical object maneuver above several A-10 aircraft parked at the Bentwaters base. Moments later, the orb suddenly split into three smaller spheres, according to Wagner, all of which vanished in a flash of light...

Full article follow the link

majicbar
12-20-2015, 03:55 AM
I think it must have been the nukes. There is no chance though that they were after 115 it decays in all the forms we know about in millionths of a sec. I think they would have the capability far beyond ours to produce it. Cold fusion processes can be used to convert radioactive elements and transmute elements the Japanese company Mitsubishi heavy industries did some research on this.

I believe that there are stable forms of element 115, but they are built at pressures and temperatures that are only seen in Supernovas. All the 115 that we have seen to date is assembeled at lower pressures and temperatures in Super-colliders; this is assembling 115 as in a carwreck, you get something that looks and has all the parts of 115, but it is not "natural" so it falls apart in very short order. I suspect that element 115 and some other very rare ultra-heavy elements can be found in gold, maybe at ratios of 1 to 10,000. We have the same separation issues with 115 that they had with early plutonium, just finding and then getting those few atoms of 115 from gold are very going to be very difficult. Study the history and nature of plutonium and you will get an idea of the complexities of the issue.

My belief is that they knew which nuclear bombs would be used in a minimal nuclear exchange, so they had a history to work from and they came not to steal nuclear materials but rather poison the nuclear materials so that it would cause the weapon to fizzle if ever dropped in the anger of a nuclear exchange. There are a number of simple atoms that would poison the nuclear mixing and make such a weapon useless, well, make it not much more than a dirty 500 pounder.

majicbar
12-20-2015, 05:13 AM
The most unusual aspect of the Rendlesham Forest encounter is the code that Jim Penniston says was impressed on his mind as he touched the craft that he encountered. If you have heard that there is a code but have not studied the code you might think that this was a concoction that Penniston made up to make his story worth more than simply saying that he encountered something odd in the forest. I would point you to go to http://www.binarydecoder.info/main.php to see the code as analyzed by Joe R. Luciano. The only thing that I dispute is the interpretation that the primary code points to "Hy brazil". When I was thinking about the code and its pointing to "Hy brasil", it made no sense to point to an empty point in the ocean, although there surely might be something on the ocean floor. But the decoded message pointed to the longitude being West, the code said, "W", didn't it?

I am familiar with the efforts to explore Mars. In the Mars explorations, there are no "W" longitudes: the defined longitudes of current Mars explorations are all East by definition. If this also held for the craft then the code as decoded would be wrong. The code would continue past 520942532N13131269 with WCONTI. WCONTI is I think a contraction as the symbolic call to the Windows code repair program WINCONTI.EXE, this occurs in the code just before a "stray" 001. As I looked at it more it struck me that the binary message that Penniston received was actually a computer program in a variety of basic. I hope to continue to study the details in the code to further understand its intended operation and how it fits into our technical history and signs that place it in a unique place in UFO encounters.

Longeyes
04-15-2016, 03:14 PM
Robert Hasting new documentary has made the headlines in the UK

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/radar-operators-say-ufo-travelled-7760916



Radar operators say UFO travelled 120 miles in 8 SECONDS in Britain's famed close encounter


Two former radar operators have revealed how a UFO travelled 120 miles in less than EIGHT SECONDS during Britain's most famous close encounter.

Ike Barker and Jim Carey have given their first in-depth interviews since the incident at RAF Bentwaters, in Suffolk - hailed as the world's best documented case....

They were on duty in the air traffic control tower when the unidentified target was tracked on radar during a spate of bizarre sightings in late December 1980.

On December 26, a small team of security police officers reported seeing a triangular shaped craft land in Rendlesham Forest, just outside the base.

Read more: UFO hunter's footage of 'alien spacecraft near Area 51'

And, two nights later, Deputy Base Commander Lt Col Charles Halt and several other USAF personnel observed strange flashing lights moving through the woods.

Ike Barker and Jim Carey gave their first in-depth interviews about RAF Bentwaters

The military team watched in awe as the glowing object fired a beam of light on the ground before it flew away.

Meanwhile, reports came in over their radios that the UFO was firing beams into the weapons storage bunkers, which housed the biggest stockpile of nuclear missiles in Europe at that time.

Halt later filed an official report to the UK Ministry of Defence - dubbed the 'Halt Memo' - giving details about the case, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act.

However sceptics have debunked the sightings as satellites, meteors or the Orfordness lighthouse a few miles away.

But speaking in a new documentary called UFOs and Nukes: The Secret Link Revealed, the retired USAF air traffic controllers say the craft they tracked was not man-made.

Longeyes
04-15-2016, 03:15 PM
Trailer for Documentary
UFOs and Nukes: The Secret Link Revealed

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/ufosandnukes

calikid
04-15-2016, 07:34 PM
Not sure how they can call it:


Ike Barker and Jim Carey have given their first in-depth interviews since the incident at RAF Bentwaters, in Suffolk...


When Hastenings interviewed Carey and Barker (http://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/02/one-ufo-at-raf-bentwaters-appeared-on.html) back in 2007.

Makes it sound like they were interviewed yesterday, when it has really been years ago.
Guess he needs to build up the suspense, if he want to sell copies of the new documentary.

@Longeyes. Have you seen it yet? Anything new? Worth the rental fee?

Wansen
04-15-2016, 07:36 PM
Trailer for Documentary
UFOs and Nukes: The Secret Link Revealed

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/ufosandnukes

I'll be watching this one.

Many thanks (yet) again Longeyes.

Longeyes
04-15-2016, 08:23 PM
Yeah i watched it. To anyone who's read his books and followed him there is nothing new and it's surprising now little content you get in 48mins. That's not meant as a criticism of the film.
It's primarily for people who don't know about the connection and video I think is by far and a way the best medium to get to them.
It is not the most graceful documentary I've seen but the content is great.


Ike Barker and Jim Carey have given their first in-depth interviews since the incident at RAF Bentwaters, in Suffolk...
That's journalist spin

Longeyes
12-07-2016, 02:39 PM
Outer Limits magazine have published an article by Philip Mantel
He has discovered a new witness, Steve Longero, a retired USAF police officer who claims to have seen the craft and to have seen Penniston Burroughs and importantly Larry Warren there on the night.
He was guarding the weapons storage area when the alarms started going off.
“While on duty that night we had a very sophisticated alarm system and everything just went off” He also confirmed nukes were kept there.

http://chris0597.wixsite.com/outer-limits-mag


The magazine is free here article is on page 47-51
https://issuu.com/scoop123/docs/olm_issue5

Follow up article in British press
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/568129/Britain-s-Roswell-UFO-Steve-Longero-Rendlesham
And an article on Openminds
http://www.openminds.tv/usaf-security-police-officer-says-he-witnessed-famous-rendlesham-forest-ufo-sighting-interview/39212
I can't seem to access openminds.tv at all at the moment anyone else having problems?

Dragonfire
12-07-2016, 03:39 PM
Thanks for the links

Redbone
12-07-2016, 07:43 PM
Outer Limits magazine have published an article by Philip Mantel
He has discovered a new witness, Steve Longero, a retired USAF police officer who claims to have seen the craft and to have seen Penniston Burroughs and importantly Larry Warren there on the night.
He was guarding the weapons storage area when the alarms started going off.
“While on duty that night we had a very sophisticated alarm system and everything just went off” He also confirmed nukes were kept there.

http://chris0597.wixsite.com/outer-limits-mag


The magazine is free here article is on page 47-51
https://issuu.com/scoop123/docs/olm_issue5

Follow up article in British press
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/568129/Britain-s-Roswell-UFO-Steve-Longero-Rendlesham
And an article on Openminds
http://www.openminds.tv/usaf-security-police-officer-says-he-witnessed-famous-rendlesham-forest-ufo-sighting-interview/39212
I can't seem to access openminds.tv at all at the moment anyone else having problems?

Probably one of the most interesting things he says is there were many more people that witnessed what happened and have yet to speak about it. All were told to keep quiet. Hopefully now that Steve Longero has come forward, other witnesses will follow. It is truly an amazing case.

Longeyes
12-08-2016, 08:17 AM
Also ' The Halt Perspective' is out now. It getting very good reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/Halt-Perspective-Charles-Irwin/dp/0957494491/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478515983&sr=1-1&keywords=The+halt+perspective

Openminds have done an interview with his co author here
http://www.openminds.tv/interview-with-author-publisher-and-ufo-researcher-john-hanson/39188

Sykotronik
12-08-2016, 11:02 AM
Richard D Hall has done a few vids that relate to the Rendelsham case, he is not well known outside the UK.

http://www.richplanet.net/rp_genre.php?ref=82&part=1&gen=1


http://www.richplanet.net/rp_genre.php?ref=148&part=1&gen=1

Gary Heseltine


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJrS85GukA

Published on 24 Dec 2012

Gary Heseltine is (was) a serving police officer with the British Transport Police. He created and runs the PRUFOS Police Database which colates UFO sightings reports by serving and retired Police Officers. Gary presents an evidential review of the RAF Bentwaters UFO incident of December 1980 from the perspective of an experienced police officer. Looking at the context in which the incident took place, potential new evidence and sources of new evidence. Gary also reports on the 30th Anniversity Reunion and the revelations that came from it.

Gary Heseltine presented "The Rendlesham Forest Incident" on Saturday 6th August 2011 at the 3rd Annual British Exopolitics Expo held at the University of Leeds.

Dragonfire
12-08-2016, 04:47 PM
From: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/12/07/it-was-not-from-this-world-witness-to-britains-roswell-ufo-incident-breaks-36-year-silence.html?ref=yfp

'It was not from this world': Witness to 'Britain's Roswell' UFO incident breaks 36-year silence

Steve Longero was told to keep quiet by his superiors following the infamous Rendlesham Forest incident in Suffolk.

But now the retired U.S. Air Force police officer has gone on the record for the first time and said: “I think it was something not from this world.”
The incident – dubbed the British Roswell – took place over three nights between 26 and 28 December, in 1980.

Military personnel from nearby RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge, including the deputy base commander, witnessed strange lights in the forest and hovering above the twin NATO airbases which were on high alert as the Cold War was at its peak.

Steve, who served as a police sergeant in the USAF, was guarding the weapons storage area when the alarms started going off.

He said: “While on duty that night, we had a very sophisticated alarm system and everything just went off.

“And then I could see these lights over the treetops, and I was thinking, what’s going on? Then they started sending people out there and at first it was hard to believe, all these bright lights. It was hard to take in.

"Well from what I remember the lights, fluorescent lights, kind of a glow, like a reddish glow. I remember going out there.”

Steve went out into the forest where he remembers seeing a large group of other military personnel had already gathered including Staff Sgt Jim Burroughs, Airman First Class Edward Cabansag and Airman First Class Larry Warren.

Describing the UFOs, he said: “They looked like fluorescent coloured lights, like red and green, glowing lights and that’s what they looked like.I could see them hovering over the treetops like an eye that was almost following everybody.”

He added: “It was real kind of quiet and this thing hovering over the trees, and you were like kind of tracking it and like ‘what is this?’. And it was like following, it was like watching us, that’s what it looked like to us. It seemed like something watching us.

“From what I remember it was like aglow, it was really glowing like a reddish, greenish light. It was really glowing, like something was really hot and it was just glowing.”
He also recalled seeing Colonel Charles Halt there, who made a tape recording describing how beams of light were being shone down by the UFO. He has written an explosive new book called The Halt Perspective describing his close encounter.

Mr Longero said: “Col Halt came afterwards, after all that was called in. I remember him turning up, that’s when they kind of gathered everyone around and said this is what we are going to do, and everybody kind of dispersed and did what they were told to do.
"I remember we had a little briefing right there and everybody was just like, we just could not believe what we were seeing. Your adrenalin was flowing and I remember people saying like ‘what is that?’.”

Rubbishing theories that the lights in the woods were caused by a lighthouse on the east coast, he laughed: “I don’t think so. Not unless the lighthouse could move. Unless they could float that thing in the air.

“And then, as people were getting close to this thing it kind of came nearer to us and then it would go forward and then go back and all of a sudden it just disappeared, like something out of Star Trek, it was like warp speed and we were all ‘what was that?’ it was gone and then that’s when they started doing all their investigations. After we secured the area they said okay, you’re gone, get out of here.”
Steve said he was debriefed a few days later and was told not to talk about what he saw as the base had nuclear weapons on site.

UFO investigator Philip Mantle, who interviewed Steve for Outer Limits Magazine, said: “Steve does not claim to be anything special but he wanted to emphasise that there were a lot of others involved who were witness to the events in question, many of whom have yet to add their voice to these events.

“Steve has confirmed the open secret that nuclear weapons were stored at RAF Bentwaters at the time although he did not personally witness any lights being shone onto the WSA.

“He has confirmed much of what Colonel Halt has already said on the record and he is in no doubt that Larry Warren was there.
“What is clear is that despite the best efforts of some this case will continue to be hotly debated for many years to come.”

The story originally appeared on The Sun.

Wansen
12-08-2016, 09:18 PM
Also ' The Halt Perspective' is out now. It getting very good reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/Halt-Perspective-Charles-Irwin/dp/0957494491/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478515983&sr=1-1&keywords=The+halt+perspective

Openminds have done an interview with his co author here
http://www.openminds.tv/interview-with-author-publisher-and-ufo-researcher-john-hanson/39188

Holy X'mas!! His book costs over $45.00!!!

A Paperback no less!!!

Longeyes
12-08-2016, 11:38 PM
Pretty steep! Maybe the perfect xmas gift :biggrin2:

CasperParks
12-09-2016, 03:00 AM
Holy X'mas!! His book costs over $45.00!!!

A Paperback no less!!!

My opinion, the book is overpriced...

Wansen
12-09-2016, 04:05 AM
My opinion, the book is overpriced...

Perhaps the price is high because it's new and will eventually drop.

I paid $55.00 for Bruni's "You can't tell the people" (hardcover) and it's now available for $33.00.

The Kindle version (Bruni's) is now available and only $7.77!

:doh:

https://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Tell-People-Definitive/dp/033039021X

CasperParks
12-09-2016, 04:49 AM
Perhaps the price is high because it's new and will eventually drop.

I paid $55.00 for Bruni's "You can't tell the people" (hardcover) and it's now available for $33.00.

The Kindle version (Bruni's) is now available and only $7.77!

:doh:

https://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Tell-People-Definitive/dp/033039021X

I consider many e-books overpriced... 9.95 for an e-book? Don't care if the author is a bestseller, they are pricing people out of the market. I think 4.95 for an e-book is acceptable... Anything higher is overpriced. People have been watching their wallets for many years. At 4.95 they'd sell more e-books than 9.95, but after a few months publisher do lower prices on new releases.

Longeyes
12-21-2016, 12:39 PM
The price probably reflects the number of trees felled to produce one copy. It arrived and it's huge.
There are a lot of other cases in the with nothing to do with Rendlesham which is really irritating.
The author is known for his expansive and brilliant series 'Haunted Skies' but as first publisher said to him something like -'Your style of writing is appalling and confusing' he decided to put everything simply in chronological order...
Which says all you need know - this book is the same, everything is there in the order it happened or was revealed, but it's not in an easy read or user friendly, it's more of an encyclopedia of the event. That said it seems pretty comprehensive.

whoknows
12-21-2016, 07:38 PM
I consider many e-books overpriced... 9.95 for an e-book? Don't care if the author is a bestseller, they are pricing people out of the market. I think 4.95 for an e-book is acceptable... Anything higher is overpriced. People have been watching their wallets for many years. At 4.95 they'd sell more e-books than 9.95, but after a few months publisher do lower prices on new releases.

If you don't absolutely have to own a copy of the book you can go to almost any library an check an ebook out for free as many times as you want.
:w00t: I love free!

CasperParks
12-22-2016, 06:07 AM
On Fade to Black - Jimmy Church (http://jimmychurchradio.com/) interviewed John Burroughs (http://www.phenomenonradio.com/) on December 20th, 2016.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-bqYvtEkiM

John Burroughs (http://www.phenomenonradio.com/) was at Rendlesham Forest.

earthman
12-22-2016, 07:22 PM
Don't know if you all know but Peter Robbins cut ties to his co-author Larry Warren. There book was about this incident. Not sure but I this is may have to do with Larry making up his part in the incident.

Longeyes
11-28-2017, 12:31 PM
Seems there is going to be a TV show on Rendlesham
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-tv-books-uk-ufo-series-doctor-who-director-1061459

'Rendlesham,' inspired by a real-life UFO incident in 1980, is being produced by Eleventh Hour Films.

Sony Pictures Television has teamed with Eleventh Hour Films, the U.K. banner behind series such as Foyle's War, for a new UFO drama.

Rendlesham is inspired by a real-life incident that took place at a U.S. air base in the U.K. in 1980, and comes from award-winning writer and director Joe Ahearne (Doctor Who), who will helm the show. Ahearne will also exec produce, alongside Eve Gutierrez and Jill Green for Eleventh Hour Films.

Longeyes
05-03-2018, 08:35 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

John Burroughs just posted this on his Facebook page:

'U.S. Government’s De Facto Acknowledgement of the Existence of UFOs

Were proud to announce a second airmen has received a settlement from the VA for injuries received in the incident!

Is there more to come yeah there's more! I will be talking more about all of this at the Conference to include what steps were taking to help others involved. The truth shall set us free!!'

newyorklily
05-03-2018, 10:39 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

John Burroughs just posted this on his Facebook page:

'U.S. Government’s De Facto Acknowledgement of the Existence of UFOs

Were proud to announce a second airmen has received a settlement from the VA for injuries received in the incident!

Is there more to come yeah there's more! I will be talking more about all of this at the Conference to include what steps were taking to help others involved. The truth shall set us free!!'I saw that on Facebook. I didn't know there was another person harmed by the event at Rendelsham. Unfortunately, Burroughs doesn't say who the other person is. I guess we'll have to wait until the conference is over.

Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

calikid
05-03-2018, 03:07 PM
I saw that on Facebook. I didn't know there was another person harmed by the event at Rendelsham. Unfortunately, Burroughs doesn't say who the other person is. I guess we'll have to wait until the conference is over.

Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

The obvious "other person" would be Sgt Jim Penniston.
But over the past several years, I don't recall hearing that Penniston ever made an injury claim against the VA.

Longeyes
11-18-2018, 10:14 PM
https://youtu.be/hHbcw94Swoc

John Boroughs describing how the Citizens Hearing got him his medical care after what happened in Rendlesham

Longeyes
01-21-2019, 01:16 PM
Jim Penniston is going to be on C2C this Friday 25th Jan. He's got a new book coming out

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2019/01/25

epo333
05-10-2020, 10:02 PM
UFO Classified

Nick Redfern | The Rendlesham Forest UFO Conspiracy

Published 10th May 2020

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41OWTDf2l8L._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2524&v=NOO4e4v8eeI&feature=emb_logo

epo333
03-23-2023, 04:43 PM
Another report on Bentwaters UFO activities.

Starts @ about 2:40


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgi_jC9AxUI

epo333
03-28-2024, 01:05 AM
Ross Coulthart investigates UK's UFO Phenomenon:

Ross Coulthart, in one of his first UFO/UAP investigations for 7NEWS Australia, looked into sightings from the UK. Nick Pope was cleared to read Britain's most closely held state secrets. The former deputy director of the Ministry of Defence was pulled aside to investigate the threat to British national security posed by UFOs. What Nick Pope found in those secret files was intriguing, but one incident left him questioning for the first time whether the truth really is out there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I-xlxV2OsY&t=206s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I-xlxV2OsY&t=206s