• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Welcome to the Forteana Forums!

This is an interesting addendum to the Rendlesham UFO saga. I have to say "addendum" because there's a mismatch between this sighting and the canonical Rendlesham storyline.

A UFO photograph has emerged that was taken near RAF Woodbridge on the night of December 24th, 1980.

Back in 1980 my mum lived in Suffolk in the East of England. Late in the evening on December 24th 1980 (christmas eve) she had just finished making final preparations for Christmas day and went into the back garden to put some rubbish into the bin. Whilst in the back garden my mum saw 4 extremely bright glowing objects in the night sky, after observing the objects she went back inside and got her camera and took a couple of photographs, she then stood and watched the objects for roughly a further one minute before they all simply blinked out and vanished from sight.
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/346192/could-this-be-the-rendlesham-forest-ufo

Here's the mismatch ... "Late in the evening on December 24th 1980" is 24 or more hours earlier than the beginning of the canonical Rendlesham storyline. The canonical storyline begins in the wee hours of December 26th (the night following Christmas Day).

Nonetheless, there have been occasional allusions to odd sightings in that area's sky attributed to earlier times (or not specified as to timeframe at all), and this photo may represent evidence for one of these infrequently-alleged additional events.
 
Hi everyone,

I've just joined today so please be gentle with me.

I was just over at my usual stomping ground and I read this new post, so it's hot off the press.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/346192/could-this-be-the-rendlesham-forest-ufo

OK I will kick things off and throw my two penneth in. The photo and article are very interesting, photo looks like it was shot with a genuine analogue camera, blur, colour, pixel bleed, grain etc look good, object looks far away, sure I can see clouds??? So who knows???

I'm going to remain on the fence on this one and wait until more information becomes available, like expert analysis etc etc. What's interesting is that it's not a typical crappy flying sauce shaped image and Halt did say that the red object exploded into 4 or 5 orbs??? And what else is interesting is, at least this person can back up their claims with photographic evidence unlike any of the main Rendlesham Forest witnesses, and let's face it what's better than a picture???

Innocent until proven guilty for me on this one, huge blow for all the skeptics this one, it really is!!!

Let battle commence.......

View attachment 38309
Welcome aboard :)
 
Well, it can be used for true memory retrieval, but all too often it results in false memory retrieval, congruent with the beliefs of the person doing the hypnotising!
There is a video of Burroughs undergoing hypnotic regression which Linda Moulton-Howe showed at a UFO congress some years back. He is clearly deeply hypnotized, which perhaps goes with him being highly suggestible. At no point does he say anything about encountering a landed object in the forest. He just re-enacts a chase of a light that turns out to be farther off than they first think. That of course is consistent with his written witness statement, which confirmed that they chased the lighthouse.

I don't have link but you might be able to find it on YouTube.
 
There is a video of Burroughs undergoing hypnotic regression which Linda Moulton-Howe showed at a UFO congress some years back. He is clearly deeply hypnotized, which perhaps goes with him being highly suggestible. At no point does he say anything about encountering a landed object in the forest. He just re-enacts a chase of a light that turns out to be farther off than they first think. That of course is consistent with his written witness statement, which confirmed that they chased the lighthouse.

I don't have link but you might be able to find it on YouTube.
It makes you wonder what other hypnotic sessions might have done to him. It is also worth noting that the main aim of the original MKUltra project was to produce an agent who might have two or three different identities programmed into him, with each having a different set of memories. They had reached this stage by the late 1950s, so goodness knows how far this had progressed by the 1980s. If none of the initial witness statements made mention of space craft or entities then it is likely that these were all false memories created later on. I'll have a look on YouTube.
 
Different day, different location - it is somewhere in Suffolk, though, so that's a bonus. Not really enough data to go on. As one of the commentators on that page said, it does resemble the cab of an excavator, but the rest of the image is very dark.
 
A contrast enhanced version shows that there is something else in this image- perhaps the cab of a JCB, and part of the bucket?

JCB.png
 
You are of course familiar with Kevin Conde's account re his, 'beams of light hoax', which he recalls was certainly in the timeframe, although occuring during a base exercise. This could possibly be the one which took place during November 1980 and which I mentioned recently.
My page on Conde's hoax is here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.html
Also have a look at this capture I made from Facebook on which Conde and Skip Buran gave Penniston a hard time over his fantastic claims
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Buran and Conde Facebook.pdf

Although Conde's hoax was not part of the main Rendlesham case, there is a former security guard at Woodbridge called Lohri Rehfeldt who claims to have seen moving lights under clouds which sounds as though they were caused by spotlights. So I think she was the victim of a hoax, although whether it was Conde's hoax or a repeat performance by others we cannot be sure because of the uncertainty over dates.
 
My page on Conde's hoax is here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham7.html
Also have a look at this capture I made from Facebook on which Conde and Skip Buran gave Penniston a hard time over his fantastic claims
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Buran and Conde Facebook.pdf

Although Conde's hoax was not part of the main Rendlesham case, there is a former security guard at Woodbridge called Lohri Rehfeldt who claims to have seen moving lights under clouds which sounds as though they were caused by spotlights. So I think she was the victim of a hoax, although whether it was Conde's hoax or a repeat performance by others we cannot be sure because of the uncertainty over dates.
Certainly a lot going on around that base. I did find the video and was interested to see Burroughs' very emotional telling of his story, even though nothing aside from a few lights were apparently observed. However, the idea discussed afterwards that the lights themselves were a life form takes us right back to the intelligent plasma notion and the Stonehenge and Averbury incidents recounted by Redfern.
 
Although Conde's hoax was not part of the main Rendlesham case...
I know we were both parties to email discussions with Kevin.

However, on the archive back up CD I mentioned earlier today having only just rediscovered, there is a massive volume of related correspondence with Kevin I'm not sure you have seen.

Either way, I am in the process of collating all of it and will make the salient points available soon as.

The issue is that Kevin recalls his stunt occurring just after Christmas, however, he also thinks it happened during a base exercise, or similar, which wouldn't normally have occurred during the holiday period.

Or was there something else taking place, which might explain the apparent discrepancy.

Kevin goes into great detail explaining the factors involved.

Last thing we obviously need is unnecessary confusion and I shall proceed cautiously here.

Some of the largely forgotten material rediscovered today is certainly, 'interesting', including a reference to Penniston and those original statements.

Do we have on record anywhere that Penniston claimed they were fabricated and part of a 'cover up'?
 
... Did the Americans drop a satellite on Suffolk?
... Put simply, the theory I am presenting here suggests that the men of the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery squadron, based in Rendlesham Forest, were just doing their job. ...
It is known that a satellite was orbiting at that date, and it is known that the 67th was one of the units assigned to collect the film capsules dropped from the satellite. Here I am putting these two facts together.

Your first fact is correct (as far as it involving a KH-9 "Big Bird" aloft at the time). Your second fact is false - at least in relation to KH-9 missions.

Yes, I remember this suggestion from years ago, and thought it had quietly gone away. It's another non-starter that doesn't begin to explain the facts of the case. ...

The reason for this lies in the fact that KH-9 recovery capsules were designed and planned from the very start to come down over the Pacific. Recovery of the capsules was handled by the 6593rd Test Squadron (later, the 6594th Test Group) operating out of Hickam AFB, Hawaii. This unit handled the midair "snatches" of parachuting modules (and sea recoveries if the midair catch didn't happen) from the early 1960s through 1986.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015092...cret-mission-will-celebrate-50th-anniversary/
 
Last edited:
"There was no flying at the twin bases over the Christmas period...".

It would appear that is the case - see my post #343.
Alternatively... why have I just come across archive material which slightly contradicts this.

Slightly, in that there are references to helicopter activity...

However, they were possible not with the 67th ARRS.

It's from correspondence which, until right now, I quite simply had zero recollection of some 20 years later and in which I wrote:

"That aside, one curious issue which has come up is a story Burroughs added when I asked him about reports of 'activity' in the 'landing site' area, during ensuing days.

Burroughs has never revealed the following previously - possibly because he's rarely been interviewed and then only briefly.

Burroughs claims that during December 29-31st he was posted to east gate between the hours of 1500-2300 [he notes that east gate
normally closed at 1800 on week days and closed all weekend].

Some unidentified personnel remained out in the 'landing site' vicinity for three days.

They were supported by helicopters.

Asked if he knew what their purpose was, Burroughs replied that he wasn't informed, however, both his Shift Commander and Flight Chief told him not to call anything in, no matter what he observed.

This can be taken two ways and some might conclude that as there was going to be some night-time activity, Burroughs was merely being warned not to report it as 'UFOs'!

He assumed these personnel were searching for something, as that's what they appeared to be doing. He didn't know where they had come from or where the helicopters were based.

Some obvious obstacles:

1. After the initial incident involving Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston, Burroughs and Penniston were given six days leave. At least, that's the story which both Halt and Penniston have told.

The point being, Burroughs should not therefore have been on duty during 29-31 December.


2. Why has hardly anyone else ever mentioned this activity? The base would still effectively have been on holiday - so where did the helicopters come from?

I've had it confirmed by 67th ARRS personnel that there were no flights at all during this period.

However, one person who has spoken about helicopter flights over thats same area in the days afterwards is Halt, who reportedly claims they were not from the base. Halt was not informed about the purpose of these flights.

My gut feeling is that Burroughs may be sincere in his recollections, although the dating might be later.

He hasn't suggested these operations were directly related to the previous 'UFO' excitement.

Interesting is that Burroughs notes these events lasted for three days. It's my understanding that a three day period was typical for base exercises.

I'm aware the 'landing site' area was also used for training purposes as standard.

Could this merely have been a training exercise, possibly later than Burroughs remembers and entirely unconnected with previous 'UFO' scares, which coincidentally happened to be in the same general location?

Now that Burroughs has raised this matter, I have to try and make some sense of its overall context and quickly.
(End)

Well, obviously I never quite managed to do that...

What's going on here?

Where did I get that reference to Halt and the helicopters from?
 
Am I missing something here??? In the article it says the photograph was taken by their mum late in the evening in her back garden putting rubbish in her bin and is a photograph of the night sky showing the UFOS she saw, the article doesn't mention anything about her been in a forest photographing a JCB, why would their mum be in a forest late in the evening taking snaps of a JCB??? So it simply isn't a photo of a JCB, plus who knows of any JCBS that can fly, certainly not me. Come on guys stop these negative debunking tactics and give the person the benefit of the doubt, go back and read the article. As for the light around the object, that could be simply light emitting from the bright lights or even an exhaust plume coming from the propulsion system??? Below is an image with brightness adjusted.

Photo1.jpg


Don't take this the wrong way but these types of forums are rotten to the core with armchair debunking skeptics who dont know what they are talking about and take pleasure in ridiculing the witness, probably jealously or who knows why they do it??? I see Ian Ridpath joined recently and every post is just a skeptical rant about Rendlesham, banging on about Halt and his men chasing a lighthouse, sorry but people like Ridpath should be banned from this forum.

People who believe in UFOS say they want the truth but when someone gives it to them like this person has, a photograph of probably what the objects were that Halt and co saw, people post derogatory, defamatory and untrue and unfounded accusations and allegations, which amount to nothing more than character assassination and is simply unfair. So post your comments and opinions but let's please stop these stupid and ridiculous and far fetched attempts at ridiculing and debunking the witness, if that's what you want to engage in then simply join a skeptics forum. Give the person the benefit of the doubt, she said she saw 4 glowing objects in the SKY and photographed them, so until proven otherwise that's what they are, UFOS, NOT a JCB. Exactly the same with Halt and co, they all describe something fantastical and what sounds like it was paranormal, not at any point does any of their testimony sound like or compare itself to a bloody lighthouse beam as Ridpath keeps banging on about, these were highly intelligent military men in charge of nuclear weapons for christ sake, I'm sure they would be able to tell the difference between UFOS and a lighthouse beam 6 miles away, in the same way that women would know the difference between UFOS glowing in the sky and a JCB apparently able to fly, sorry but I've heard it all now. Look at the photo below, it's a photograph of the night sky showing 4 glowing UFOS, if you cant handle that information then stop researching and looking for the answers and truth regarding the UFO subject.

Enlargement.jpg
 
... Just my opinion, but we have a long running Rendelsham Thread with detailed analysis and theories, would like to see this image on there. Be a shame to split the discussion between threads. ...

Good point ... Moving this discussion into the main Rendlesham thread ...
 
Where did I get that reference to Halt and the helicopters from?
From the following, apparently.

Quoting my then correspondence:

Halt has actually mentioned what may be confirmation of same. In a little-known interview, for long since defunct UK 'Sightings' magazine [volume 2, issue 3], Halt reportedly stated:

[BEGINNING OF ARTICLE]
It seemed peculiar, but an unscheduled American CS Galaxy transport aeroplane landed at RAE Woodbridge a few days after the first incident, bringing with it its own security personnel and Halt wasn't even allowed to know what their mission was. With that, why did a Lt. Colonel and Deputy Base Commander, with a security clearance too high to mention, not have the authority to know what a visiting plane is doing on his base?

"You have to keep in mind that this was a foreign country to us. We had no authority here whatsoever, but I can assure you if it were within the United States, we'd have cordoned the place off with military police and we'd have the authorities there, probably in there until any agencies would have told us to back off.

He also said that following the planes arrival un-marked helicopters, that were not from Woodbridge, were seen above the landing site during the following days.
[END]

I now also note that in answer to my further enquiries, Burroughs stated they were, 'single rotor' helicopters.

This couldn't possibly... surely... have a connection to the Cash-Landrum 'UFO' case, occuring around the exact same time over in the U.S. ....

I shall explain shortly.
 
This couldn't possibly... surely... have a connection to the Cash-Landrum 'UFO' case, occuring around the exact same time over in the U.S. ....

I shall explain shortly.
Goodness sakes, looks like I actually suggested this to John Burroughs at the time, writing:

"The unfolding background to Cash-Landrum is perhaps worth keeping in mind with regard to events at Rendlesham.

One puzzling aspect of Cash-Landrum was the presence of more than 20 Chinook helicopters, plus other smaller single-rotor models. All nearby bases denied any knowledge of them and a spokesman noted it might be a 'super secret thing'.

Although the helicopters were never identified, I've uncovered newly available evidence which establishes they were from 'Task Force 158', which evolved into the legendary 'Night Stalkers'.

(...)

'Task Force 158' were indeed a 'super secret thing', as was their training in Texas for a possible second Iran hostage rescue attempt.

(...)

The point being, 1980 was a desperate time for the U.S. government and military and this resulted in a number of elite 'special operations' units becoming a law until themselves.

...even senior commanders might not have a 'need to know' about everything".
(End)

Particularly intriguing here is that the relatively new and highly manoeuvrable single rotor Bell UH-1 'Huey' helicopter now made a hostage rescue mission conceivable.

I was given massive insight re all of this, from someone who participated in those Texas training operations.

I now recall that Burroughs and myself discussed whether the helicopters he witnessed might have arrived and departed via the C-5 transporter.

All coincidental...?

Does it reopen the question of helicopters being a factor during our second night's events?

It's crazy...
 
An email received from Airman Kenneth Green some years ago:

"One thing I remembered after talking to you last was an incident that occurred on my way to Bentwaters one night for the Midnight shift. I was living off base at the time in a small town called Darsham near Saxmundham, Suffolk. My room mate and I were on a small country road and as we came round a curve there was a small triangular object, about 8 feet in height, stopped in middle of the road. This object had a small flashing orange beacon on top and bright white lights emanating from it at various points".
(End)

Kenneth explained they were able to quite definitively identify that it was indeed a mechanical, metallic vehicle.

Commonly known as a tractor.
 
Seems like an opportune moment to say that I've really been enjoying the material and expertise which @Comfortably Numb and @Ian Ridpath have been generously sharing on this thread - thanks, both! - and the discussion by other knowledgeable posters which this has generated. It would be a massive shame to see the thread knocked off course by a long meta-discussion.
 
It would be a massive shame to see the thread knocked off course by a long meta-discussion.
It won't... like a UFO approaching from the south, sending down a beam of light and then receding, such things quickly come and go... hopefully to never return...

I think... we might now have a solution to something which has long bothered myself. From correspondence only now rediscovered, some 20 years ago I puzzled:

"In Larry Warren's book, Left at East Gate', there's a photograph of the entrance to RAF Bentwaters, statedly taken on 28 December, 1980. A prominent notice board declares 'ALERT CONDITION'.

I have this on file:

Col. Halt speaks in this rare interview with Jonathon Dillon about his involvement within the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident, and other UFO cases which he is aware of.

By Jonathon Dillon, 1995

(...)

"It was essentially my job to know what was going on in the fire departments, in the police squadron, on the A-10 flight line, because our mission was to send in the A-l0's, over Germany and Poland, should the Russians mobilise and kill their tanks and what was going on everywhere really" he said.

Indeed, December 1980 was one of the most unstable parts of the Cold War. Soviet troops were gathering across the borders of Poland, because Communist rule was being threatened by the trade unions' 'Solidarity'. The United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) had just
warned Moscow not to interfere and RAF Woodbridge & RAF/USAF Bentwaters and others in England had been put on full-alert.
(End of extract).

Although from email discussions with several personel on duty during our enigmatic, late December 1980 events, I had already realised there was seemingly a heightened state of alert, this would appear to be the full explanation?
 
After the initial incident involving Burroughs, Cabansag and Penniston, Burroughs and Penniston were given six days leave. At least, that's the story which both Halt and Penniston have told.

The point being, Burroughs should not therefore have been on duty during 29-31 December.
Continuing to read through volumes of old correspondence, I see this was later resolved and only Penniston was on leave, so Burroughs' helicopters account here does seem to merit consideration.
 
... "In Larry Warren's book, Left at East Gate', there's a photograph of the entrance to RAF Bentwaters, statedly taken on 28 December, 1980. A prominent notice board declares 'ALERT CONDITION'. ...

Is that all it said?

Some form of sign board for displaying the current alert condition (LERTCON, FPCON, THREATCON, etc.) is a pretty standard feature at a USAF base entrance gate.
 
Don't take this the wrong way but these types of forums are rotten to the core with armchair debunking skeptics who dont know what they are talking about and take pleasure in ridiculing the witness, probably jealously or who knows why they do it???
Not taken the wrong way, but this isn't "that type of forum". We've a strong tradition of impartially evaluating evidence. As Yithian mentioned to you elsewhere, we've been doing this for twenty years, have outlasted pretty much all of the other forums covering the same sort of territory, and there's a reason for this. I'd advise you to familiarise yourself with the board ethos by reading other threads, and again if you have specific issues with the moderation please address them to me via PM.

Now. back on with the thread.
It would be a massive shame to see the thread knocked off course by a long meta-discussion.
We will do our best to ensure this doesn't happen.
 
Am I missing something here??? In the article it says the photograph was taken by their mum late in the evening in her back garden putting rubbish in her bin and is a photograph of the night sky showing the UFOS she saw, the article doesn't mention anything about her been in a forest photographing a JCB, why would their mum be in a forest late in the evening taking snaps of a JCB??? So it simply isn't a photo of a JCB, plus who knows of any JCBS that can fly, certainly not me
The reason Rendlesham is a good case to analyse is that we have a tape made at the time, and names and ongoing contact with the main witnesses.

On the other hand all we have for this photo is an anonymous, second-hand account made forty years later, and a first-hand witness who cannot now be interviewed. For those reasons this photograph is not comparable in importance to the existing evidence for Rendlesham.
 
Is that all it said?
If I were responsible, I would apologise for its paucity!

IMG_20210420_083943~3_resize_79.jpg


IMG_20210420_083943~4_resize_52.jpg


One issue about an, 'Alert Condition' existing, concerns SMSgt Kevin Conde's 'UFO beams of light' hoax at RAF Woodbridge.

Initially dating this to, "just after Christmas", in December 1980, Kevin wasn't so sure because he thought it occurred during a base exercise and there would not have been one during the Christmas holiday period.

In correspondence, Kevin explained his reason for believing so, was down to a recollection of who he was on duty with at the time of that 'stunt' and the shift pattern he was working.

It wasn't his normal routine and more consistent with there being an exercise on base at that time.

However, it subsequently transpired this equally might also have applied if the base was on, 'Alert Condition'.

I can't remember if we ever resolved this and am presently going over all our correspondence.

I would honestly prefer we could definitely rule out his hoax as theoretically having any involvement - it's too complicated.

As regards the video tape of our joint participation in the BBC East, 'Inside Out' feature, I played it yesterday as mentioned was my intention.

I've never watched it and as noted the 2003 cassette looked to be in poor condition, having languished in a cardboard box, in a forsaken cupboard, ever since.

In a somewhat suitable Fortean experience, there was no picture, only wavy lines and sound.

I did however manage to film on my mobile, the mere 11 minute audio segment, which was followed by an interesting news feature about chicken tikka masala now apparently being Britain's favourite dish.

At which point, the tape snapped.

It keeps me out the pub...

Well, at least until they reopen in Scotland next week...

At which time, I will also be permitted travel across the border to England!

Meantime, later today I shall be visiting the lovely borders village of Redpath, about a 30 minute drive from here.
 
For information and maybe helps clarify further a couple of points from Halt's experiences - I have come across the following in the transcript of a little known interview and can't recall same being elaborated elsewhere, Halt detailing:

"When you look through a starlight scope you don’t see things as you normally would. It’s a greenish-yellow tinge to them. It’s a different spectrum, or different, uh, frequency".

(...)

"So let’s skip back now to the third night, the night I was out there. We’re standing at the edge of the forest looking into the forest through the skylight scope, and we do see a dull glow in there. But, it really wasn’t of great significance; at least I didn’t think so ‘cause sometimes you can see things through the starlight scope, it can be some type of energy or whatever, heat".
(End)
 
Back
Top