[Merged] Rendlesham Incident 1980:

[dr no]

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
  

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2zKdZjuLx

In fact the radiation wasn't above the norm.

As for the radiation detected at the “landing site” three independent scientific experts, including the makers of the Geiger counter, have since stated there was nothing unusual in the levels recorded by Halt’s team in the forest. They were simply background levels that would be expected in a pine forest

http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/

Its worth reading the link as Nick Pope is only giving one side of the story

[Sakari]

Old topic, but glad it is up.

That " binary code ", isn't it GPS coordinates?....If so, no one has gone to investigate?

Updated Binary Code and Coordinates by a professional binary decoder expert!

- There were only 5 pages (not 6) of Jim's notebook originally provided to the History Channel for

binary decoding

- The History Channel decoded and interpreted the coordinates using DMS (Degrees, Minutes, Seconds) to:

52 09'42.532" N 13 13'12.69" W

and erroneously displayed them in one graphic as:

52 09'42.352" N 13 13'12.69" W

It is HIGHLY unlikely that a computer-based system would use this variable method of

representing geographic coordinates. Instead, it would use a decimal representation, and

most likely in 1980, with an assumed decimal point. This would then be the coordinates

derived from the binary code (pages 1-5):

These are the official coordinates as derived from Jim Penniston's binary code by the

professional binary decoder expert.

52.0942532N 13.131269W

http://www.therendleshamforestincident.com/The_Decoded_Binary_Code.php

.

[Oppono Astos]

What exactly does this bring to the Rendlesham debate; tired old claims (which have been discussed and debunked for years) trotted out again by self-styled UFO expert.

[zoser]

What exactly does this bring to the Rendlesham debate; tired old claims (which have been discussed and debunked for years) trotted out again by self-styled UFO expert.

They haven't been debunked. That's the whole point.

If the hinge pin of the debunk attempt is a lighthouse misidentification then the debunk fails.

Once again if you think nothing happened then prove it; take the case witness by witness. There are as you well know lots of them.

Some of the accounts have inconsistencies.

That's easily explainable:

1) The case occurred over 30 years ago.

2) Drugs were administered to the witnesses during debriefing.

There is no remote possibility under such conditions that the accounts will be totally consistent. To expect that is to be naive and ignorant.

It's happened many times during the cold war at nuclear sites. It was not a unique event.

Something landed that was not of this planet or time or both.

To prove otherwise you have a lot of work to do. Or:

Get used to it.

Edited April 22, 2014 by zoser

[seeder]

What exactly does this bring to the Rendlesham debate; tired old claims (which have been discussed and debunked for years) trotted out again by self-styled UFO expert.

According to zoser its not been debunked! Well he does have a habit of ignoring posts in threads that dont support his views, ie, the debunks

I agree, its an old - worn out and tired subject.

[quillius]

According to zoser its not been debunked! Well he does have a habit of ignoring posts in threads that dont support his views, ie, the debunks

I agree, its an old - worn out and tired subject.

It hasnt been debunked.

Ian Ridpath did a good job in debunking the event, however if you were to look into it he has some glaring flaws in his analysis. Starting with the 'comet' that is stated as the light seen from the gate that instigated the chase. The comet lasted 3-5 seconds according to astronomers, yet the light was seen from said position by two groups who were at least 15 minutes apart in taking up this position by the gate.

So (as Ian Ridpath confirms) the lighthouse could NOT be seen from the gate, so what started the chase? (as we know the comet could not have been the culprit either due to its longevity)

[zoser]

Halt was never drugged.

But one might wonder why it took him two weeks to write that memo if this was such a critical event? Ever wonder about that?

I guess it wasn't really all that big of a deal in the first place eh?

To pick on a detail and claim that it discredits the case because you cannot understand that detail fails.

Another example was the Belgian UFO witnessed by the air force and and lots of members of the public and police who described the craft.

Then some joker hoaxes a picture and skeptics claim the case is a fraud.

That fails.

The same with Rendlesham. There is so much to the case that one detail will not alter it.

So where is the debunk? Do we have more than just a lighthouse or am I missing something?

Edited April 22, 2014 by zoser

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No, it's a magic lighthouse that moves and changes colour, keep up Zoser!

[zoser]

It hasnt been debunked.

Ian Ridpath did a good job in debunking the event, however if you were to look into it he has some glaring flaws in his analysis. Starting with the 'comet' that is stated as the light seen from the gate that instigated the chase. The comet lasted 3-5 seconds according to astronomers, yet the light was seen from said position by two groups who were at least 15 minutes apart in taking up this position by the gate.

So (as Ian Ridpath confirms) the lighthouse could NOT be seen from the gate, so what started the chase? (as we know the comet could not have been the culprit either due to its longevity)

Or course it hasn't.

It's one of the many classic cases that never can be because there are too many credible witnesses and other corroborating details.

Everyone knows it.

[Occams Razor]

Whilst I think the 'Rendlesham Incident' is one of the more interesting alien visitation tales, I don't believe this binary message nonsense for a minute. That Penniston waited 30 years or so before coming up with this twaddle screams 'more money making material required' to me.

Just out of curiosity... what did he do for a living after leaving the Air Force? Did he have a 'proper job' or did he make a living on the UFO lecture circuit?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Occams Razor

[zoser]

Whilst I think the 'Rendlesham Incident' is one of the more interesting alien visitation tales, I don't believe this binary message nonsense for a minute. That Penniston waited 30 years or so before coming up with this twaddle screams 'more money making material required' to me.

Erm let's see why? Official secrets perhaps? MIlitary pensions? Duhhhh............

And the other witnesses? Why pick on one?

Another fail.

Edited April 22, 2014 by zoser

[quillius]

Whilst I think the 'Rendlesham Incident' is one of the more interesting alien visitation tales, I don't believe this binary message nonsense for a minute. That Penniston waited 30 years or so before coming up with this twaddle screams 'more money making material required' to me.

I think I would tend to agree with this statement as I too dont buy parts of the tale from later years, in fact I havent really got that far so my opinion is at the moment limited to the time frame and interviews/statements given then.

I would also change the words 'alien visitation tales' to 'UFO event'......I think the 'alien' part doesnt help.

[zoser]

I think I would tend to agree with this statement as I too dont buy parts of the tale from later years, in fact I havent really got that far so my opinion is at the moment limited to the time frame and interviews/statements given then.

I would also change the words 'alien visitation tales' to 'UFO event'......I think the 'alien' part doesnt help.

I don't do political correctness Q.

I call a spade a spade not a 'metallic plate shaped earth moving device'.

[quillius]

I don't do political correctness Q.

I call a spade a spade not a 'metallic plate shaped earth moving device'.

fair enough

[Occams Razor]

Erm let's see why? Official secrets perhaps? MIlitary pensions? Duhhhh............

And the other witnesses? Why pick on one?

Because as far as I know the others have not added detailed information 30 years after the event.

http://www.therendle...nary_Codes.html

Why wait until 2010? Why would this piece of information affect his pension or be more secret than all of the other details he gave at the time?

Duhhhh............

Edited April 22, 2014 by Occams Razor

[Occams Razor]

I think I would tend to agree with this statement as I too dont buy parts of the tale from later years, in fact I havent really got that far so my opinion is at the moment limited to the time frame and interviews/statements given then.

Where it should remain... free of subsequent embellishments.

I would also change the words 'alien visitation tales' to 'UFO event'......I think the 'alien' part doesnt help.

Good point, I normally do use the term UFO.

This case is unusual in that the UFO as described by Penniston, if he can be believed, was a tangible device, he saw it and touched it. He tells us he felt it and it was warm. He tells us there were glyphs along the side, which he drew.

What I think is a bit strange is that Colonel Halt would venture out the next night, or the night after to look at another UFO event in the same location yet not take a camera. The audio recording he made at the time is really quite interesting, they sound genuinely spooked to me. And the thought that a deputy commander of a nuclear armed AFB could mistake a lighthouse for an object manouvering through some trees close to where he's standing is bloody terrifying. And I think extremely unlikely.

[quillius]

Where it should remain... free of subsequent embellishments.

Good point, I normally do use the term UFO.

This case is unusual in that the UFO as described by Penniston, if he can be believed, was a tangible device, he saw it and touched it. He tells us he felt it and it was warm. He tells us there were glyphs along the side, which he drew.

What I think is a bit strange is that Colonel Halt would venture out the next night, or the night after to look at another UFO event in the same location yet not take a camera. The audio recording he made at the time is really quite interesting, they sound genuinely spooked to me. And the thought that a deputy commander of a nuclear armed AFB could mistake a lighthouse for an object manouvering through some trees close to where he's standing is bloody terrifying. And I think extremely unlikely.

although I have read that he did indeed have a camera.....not sure what happened to this camera or why it isnt mentioned apart from this:

ENGLUND: Yes, all facing in toward the centre of the landing site...

HALT: OK, why don’t you take a picture of that and remember your picture, we ain’t gonna be writing this down. Oh, it’s gonna be on the tape.

ENGLUND: You got a tape measure with you?

HALT: This is the picture, your first picture will be at the first tree, the one between mark two and three. Meantime I’m gonna look at a couple other of these trees over here.

NEVELS: We are getting some...

granted its a little vague, especially in context of teh discussions about sketches and readings......

even though he was taken out of the dinner party he apparently had time to go back and change prior to heading out.....not only that, he also took the geiger counter so he had time to pick equipment up. maybe the film had finished by the time the lights appeared? maybe the distance and the obscurity of trees made taking a picture of fast moving light a little tricky...who knows.....

[zoser]

Because as far as I know the others have not added detailed information 30 years after the event.

http://www.therendle...nary_Codes.html

Why wait until 2010? Why would this piece of information affect his pension or be more secret than all of the other details he gave at the time?

Duhhhh............

Depends upon what the agreement was he made with his superiors.

This is never going to lead to a major credibility flaw in this incident anyway.

The problems you are having are because of a failure to accept what is obvious. There are a multitude of cases like this. Multiple witnesses and a multitude of aspects to it.

It's dead easy to debunk a guy using a laser pen on youtube, Anyone can do that now.

With this type of case it's not so easy as Ian Ridpath found out.

Edited April 22, 2014 by zoser

[Occams Razor]

although I have read that he did indeed have a camera.....not sure what happened to this camera or why it isnt mentioned apart from this:.. granted its a little vague, especially in context of teh discussions about sketches and readings......

It may be that the camera was used the following day, during daylight to photograph the 'landing site'.

[quillius]

It may be that the camera was used the following day, during daylight to photograph the 'landing site'.

although the conversation I posted was part of the transcript from the recording taken from the night in question

[Sakari]

What exactly does this bring to the Rendlesham debate; tired old claims (which have been discussed and debunked for years) trotted out again by self-styled UFO expert.

If that was for my reply, don't get me wrong. I did not follow much on the binary code thing. I am not one to " believe " aliens visit us.

I did read ( on that link ) he is quoted saying he has 3 more pages, and the results to be released soon. ?? I think " soon " has come and gone.

[Occams Razor]

The problems you are having are because of a failure to accept what is obvious.

Ok, I'll bite, what's obvious?

I think something unusual happened without doubt. But as we all know there is often an awful lot of embellishment when it comes to UFO events.

Did any of the others see the glyphs on the device? Penniston says he touched it, did any of the others see that? If he touched it, why didn't he push it to see how much resistance it presented? If it was dripping a metallic substance why is there no record of samples being collected? If it was radio-active enough to leave high radiation readings on the ground and trees why didn't Penniston (who claims he touched it) and the others suffer radiation sickness? Do you really think a species advanced enough to develop inter-stellar travel would build a 'dirty' probe, something that was radio-active?

And what is so interesting about that small patch of forest that an extraterrestrial species would send a probe across inter-stellar distances to examine it... twice?

Some time after the event Halt stated that a UFO sent a beam of light down to the nuclear weapons storage area... this wasn't mentioned in the original account. Embellishment anyone...

And as far as Penniston's binary code recollection 30 years after the event goes... why would any alien species use binary? And why would that binary code be formatted in a way that makes any sense to us?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Occams Razor

[seeder]

on second thoughts I removed that so as not to be drawn in to the convo again

Edited April 22, 2014 by seeder

[bendigger0]

Whew! Nice to know now... that nothing unusual actually happened in the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident (so-called)!

[bendigger0]

I'm just wondering, is it true that none of the soldiers had weapons in this scenario? I'm asking because I'm having trouble believing none of the troops actually reported pointing any weapon at any of what was seen. Which seems odd since it is a military base...

When leaving the base proper... military is required to leave their weapons "on base".