Rendlesham Forest Incident

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Just to enlarge my comment about a significant similarity between a civilian report and Halt and co's sighting of a small red object flying around the trees:

Gary Collins was a builder who had worked at the bases on construction jobs and was friendly with some of the servicemen. One night he was with four at the local Swan pub when their pagers went off and all were ordered back to base on a Red alert. About 11.30 when Gary was on his way home on his motor bike at Lion's Corner he rode into a brightly illuminated area. Bruni quotes him:

It was intensely bright, like daylight... I heard a faint humming sound and looked up to see what appeared to be a thirty foot object hovering about 60 feet above me. I can only describe its underside, which seemed to be traingular-shaped,black in colour, but dripping liquid. It was as if fluid was dripping off it... like melted ice. Suddenly it went at an angle, slowly, then took off at a tremendous speed and seemed to crash into the forest...

Next day he saw roadblocks on Tangham Road, leading to RAF Woodbridge. A few days later his pal Wayne told him that when he went back to base he was told to go to East gate with others when everyone saw a huge UFO on the ground with entities repairing it. Wayne said they had all been ordered not to reveal it... later on Wayne vanished and Gary was told he had gone back to the States, although he had left behind his precious motor bike. This sounds like a complete bit of mind control/disinformation aimed at establishing the ET narrative. The obvious conclusion (to me) is that the object that Gary saw was some US device in trouble and had to be covered up.

The similarity between the object described and the Halt observation of the "glowing red object like a red eye with a black pupil, which seemed to be winking and dripping what he could only describe as molten metal" is obvious, although Bruni strangely fails to pick up on this point.
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
In addition to these names, Pope says that Halt also had a Sgt. Fail in the group.
Thanks!

That would make sense, he is mentioned in an email from Jerry Valdez:

"I was assigned to RAF Bentwaters in August of 1980.

I worked with Burroughs and Penniston. What they said was true. As a matter of fact, the following statements are true and can be verified by many people.

The acting squadron was the 81st. SPS and "B" Flight was the acting security force on duty. Burroughs and Penniston were on "B" flight.

"A" flight was the day flight, daytime only.

The Guard at East gate was Amn Burroughs and Amn Beachum.

I was stationed on Security - 6 with either Amn Hartman or Sgt Sauls.

We saw the entire thing.

Shift change was from 26th at 2300 hrs till 0700 hrs of the 27th.

The top Flight Sgt on duty was MSgt Fail.

Lt.Col Halt was not there the first night.

It was a bitterly cold night and clear the first night, when the lights were in the woods. It quite possibly could have been Christmas [i.e., the 25/26th].

The person on the post should have been Burroughs, but he was missing, the weapons were missing and the phone was off the hook.

This was around 2:00 a.m.

We were carrying weapons and were told to hold our position. MSgt Fail went out".
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Fail is probably a mishearing for Ball (or the other way around).
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Fail is probably a mishearing for Ball (or the other way around).
Possibly!

Meanwhile, here is a piece of info from Jenny Randles apparently quoting a statement from Halt that I haven't seen anywhere else:

"The Colonel explained that the object from the south came really close and the beam of light struck the ground at the feet of his party some 5 yards away. It was about 12" in diameter and lasted about 5 seconds. When it hit the ground it did so instantly and then it vanished instantly as well."

She also says that Halt heard radio chatter from all over the area indicating that similar beams were being observed in several locations.

To me this doesn't sound anything like a laser beam, which is usually very narrow, certainly smaller than a foot wide. Nor does a beam that hit the ground 5 yards away really justify the claim that it was "at their feet." The fact that others were reporting the same phenomenon in different parts of the forest certainly argues against the idea that what he saw was an artefect of the image intensifier device.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Laser beams do spread out, especially if emitted from a small aperture. They are also invisible, unless they are emitted in a smoky atmosphere like a Pink Floyd concert. I doubt this was a laser beam.

There isn't much evidence that anyone except Halt and his small band of five or so men saw beams anyway - the 'chatter' on the tape doesn't mention beams, although it does mention Sgt Bustinza.
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
998
Reaction score
2,062
Points
139
Next day he saw roadblocks on Tangham Road, leading to RAF Woodbridge. A few days later his pal Wayne told him that when he went back to base he was told to go to East gate with others when everyone saw a huge UFO on the ground with entities repairing it. Wayne said they had all been ordered not to reveal it... later on Wayne vanished and Gary was told he had gone back to the States, although he had left behind his precious motor bike. This sounds like a complete bit of mind control/disinformation aimed at establishing the ET narrative. The obvious conclusion (to me) is that the object that Gary saw was some US device in trouble and had to be covered up.
Well the following post from way back upstream may (or may not) suggest some pointers:
For what it's worth, a few years ago I was acquainted with an ex RAF engineer who had been based at Rendlesham at the time of the 'incident'. He wasn't involved in the flap himself, but remembers it well - there was blanket secrecy on the base, and officially nothing happened.

He did some nosing about, is pretty sure that the UFO story is itself a cover-up of something else. In the weeks before the incident, they had been working on a prototype VTOL jet, which he described as looking like a smaller, sleeker version of a Harrier. After the incident he never saw it or the project engineers again. Rumour had it that the jet had crashed in the forest that night, and the whole UFO story was something the intelligence officers fed to the public when journalists started sniffing about.

Of course he might just have been spinning me a yarn - but his story seemed to hang together.


I'm a UFO believer (albeit not committed to any particular paradigm) but I do feel that the Rendlesham case has a significantly different aspect to it than other close encountr cases. For one thing, the description of the object as seeming to eject `molten metal` seems pretty unique to me.I can think of no parallel from the UFO annals.

I dislike most conspiracy theories, but I do find myself gravitaring more in that direction when considering all the ins and outs of this series of events.

There are some other oddities from the surrounding area that no-one else seems to have mentioned. According to Graham Birdsall a former prison officer informed him that staff of High Point Prison in Suffolk had been advised of a potential need to evacuate persons in the jail as some kind of incident concerning national securiyy was going to take place on the night of 27th December 1980.*

I do find Ebaracum's hypothesis about certain stars being disstorted through a viewfinder as contributing to the sighting as quite a compelling one- at least as far as Halt's testimony goes (less so the lighthouse and the perseid meteors). However what this does not explain on its own is why two military men (a social group not known for flights of fancy) would get so worked up over an optical phenomena. In the podcast by Paranet that Comfortably Numb shared above, the two air base policemen interviewed are at pains to emphasise the emotional impact of the event - as though they themselves feel it to have been quite extraordinary.

The same podcast goes on to mention the possibility of experimental `psychotropic` weapons being deployed at the base - as an explanation for the conundrum. Certainly microwaves or even just some kind of infrasound could have made personnel jittery and paranoid.

It could also maybe explain why farm animals in the vicinity were reportedly acting out on those nights....

So.. piece all the above together: a test flight of an American prototype aircraft - perhaps one deploying psychtronic weaponry of some kind - and perhaps which crashed or came to grief - thus accidentally activating the weaponry? - at the Rendlesham base.

* Source: Redfern, Nicholas A Covert Agenda (London: Simon & Schuster, 1997).
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,984
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Laser beams do spread out, especially if emitted from a small aperture. They are also invisible, unless they are emitted in a smoky atmosphere like a Pink Floyd concert. I doubt this was a laser beam.
This is true. It is possible to make a laser beam look much larger, with the use of a rotating/oscillating mirror. Maybe this is some kind of contour scanner?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,127
Points
203
A general question to anyone here really, if as hypothesised by @Zeke Newbold above, it may have been a secret/experimental US aircraft, why was it being tested in Suffolk rather than the US?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,984
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
A general question to anyone here really, if as hypothesised by @Zeke Newbold above, it may have been a secret/experimental US aircraft, why was it being tested in Suffolk rather than the US?
Perhaps because the locals aren't as likely to own guns?
OK, I can't think of a reason.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,829
Reaction score
31,232
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
A general question to anyone here really, if as hypothesised by @Zeke Newbold above, it may have been a secret/experimental US aircraft, why was it being tested in Suffolk rather than the US?
It wouldn't have been an experimental aircraft's home base, but it might well have been a stopover point or alternate landing site for long-distance field trials.

A decade after the Rendlesham incident(s) UK airfields were often cited as waypoints for over-the-pole or circumglobal test flights of the alleged Aurora aircraft.

As of 1980 SR-71s and U-2s were operating out of Mildenhall, and Bentwaters / Woodbridge would almost certainly have been a designated alternative landing site should a problem arise.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Nor does a beam that hit the ground 5 yards away really justify the claim that it was "at their feet."
*If* it did happen, personally, I'm OK with that, given the circumstances and accounting for memory over the several years since!
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
It wouldn't have been an experimental
As of 1980 SR-71s and U-2s were operating out of Mildenhall, and Bentwaters / Woodbridge would almost certainly have been a designated alternative landing site should a problem arise.
Absolutely, although in our case we have no meaningful evidence of anything anything actually landing, especially now given Burroughs claims in the ParaNet radio interview and there being a 'UFO sighting', from effectively the same vicinity, over three consecutive nights.

It certainly sounds like the observation of a a bright, scintillating star which might have been the catalyst for all which subsequently transpired.

Would we all agree on one thing - if there was no actual enigmatic aeriel vehicle involved that first night, then there isn't much probability of one being involved during Halt's investigation?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,829
Reaction score
31,232
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Absolutely, although in our case we have no meaningful evidence of anything anything actually landing, especially now given Burroughs claims in the ParaNet radio interview and there being a 'UFO sighting', from effectively the same vicinity, over three consecutive nights. ...
I don't really have a spare hour to invest in the Paranet recording, so ...

Which 3 consecutive nights are the ones anyone's claiming were involved? My first guess would be the nights of December 25 / 26, 26 / 27, and 27 / 28. Is that right?

I'm still confused by all the confusion over the timeline and the dates. Over time much effort has gone into sorting the stories' contents into two nights - December 25 / 26 and 27 / 28. This two-night version seems to have become the standard interpretation. Are you saying it might well have been three nights? For one thing, that would help explain Halt's original claims for the dates, which clashed with the current standard interpretation.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,829
Reaction score
31,232
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Would we all agree on one thing - if there was no actual enigmatic aeriel vehicle involved that first night, then there isn't much probability of one being involved during Halt's investigation?
Whether we're talking two or three nights, I don't think it's safe to generalize across all of them based on what may or may not have been the case for the first night in isolation - at least not for as long as the timeline and event descriptions are as jumbled as they are.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Discovered moments ago in a seemingly unrelated folder on an archive backup CD, this was a map compiled by local resident and massively helpful researcher, Robert McLean.

It's a high resolution image which can be enlarged:

www.forteanmedia.com/LANDSITE.jpg
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,829
Reaction score
31,232
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Thanks for the map. It's helpful in getting oriented to what happened where.

It appears to show Halt's party progressing eastward and crossing from the forest into open land beyond the "forest boundary fence." However, there's no gate in the fence noted at the point where they passed through.

Was there another gate they would have used to pass through the boundary fence on that path / route, or was the fence no real barrier to foot traffic all along its length?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
For information and also courtesy of Robert, an aerial survey photograph (not taken in relation to our case) and I have this dated from 1986.

This shows the clearing and I presume it's relationship to the farmers field?

Robert has indicated the two accessible pathways.

www.forteanmedia.com/P1986_2.jpg
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Was there another gate they would have used to pass through the boundary fence on that path / route, or was the fence no real barrier to foot traffic all along its length?
Robert provided several related maps, which I have only just rediscovered, quite literally!

They contain his possibly now invaluable notes and I shall upload them forthwith.

I found them in a folder named, 'ftp'; and thought, 'wonder what's in there'

As you do, some 20 years later... :)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Was there another gate they would have used to pass through the boundary fence on that path / route, or was the fence no real barrier to foot traffic all along its length?
There is so much detail in Robert's research I am simply going to upload the record I have of our correspondence and associated material. I'm trusting Robert would have zero objections and indeed quite the contrary.

It's raw, unedited and exactly as it should be! Although some of the contents probably look a bit naive now, that's how it was at the time.

Is the answer to your question therein?

Even from a cursory revision, there are currently some things which appear to merit revisiting, perhaps not least for myself, observations I made re Halt's tape recording way back then.

www.forteanmedia.com/R_McLean.txt

If nothing else, dare I say an engrossing Fortean read, on a very late winter's evening.

Can't believe it's actually snowing here... :cshock:
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
See post #572 !
Yes I know. I'm thinking of Halt's interview with Rayl.
RAYL: Bobby Ball. I, I've heard that name. But I'm, I'm passing on questions here from Scotland, so...
HALT: No. I don't know any Fail. I'm sure somebody's got Bobby Ball's name wrong.
RAYL: Fail. It's actually Fail, as in, F-A-I-L is what he said.
HALT: Yeah.
Fail didn't ring any bells with Halt, although Bobby Ball did.
Is Tommy Cannon in there too?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Fail didn't ring any bells with Halt, although Bobby Ball did.
Is Tommy Cannon in there too?
I've spent a couple of hours going through my archives and can't find any mention of him.

I did however come across a new witness, MSgt Robert C. Nesbitt.

Reputedly became a physicist and had academic papers published on his string vest theory.

Du31TXvWwAUuUMW_resize_90.jpg
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,984
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I've spent a couple of hours going through my archives and can't find any mention of him.

I did however come across a new witness, MSgt Robert C. Nesbitt.

Reputedly became a physicist and had academic papers published on his string vest theory.

View attachment 37679
I've heard that he works for the Govan-ment.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Well the following post from way back upstream may (or may not) suggest some pointers:




I'm a UFO believer (albeit not committed to any particular paradigm) but I do feel that the Rendlesham case has a significantly different aspect to it than other close encountr cases. For one thing, the description of the object as seeming to eject `molten metal` seems pretty unique to me.I can think of no parallel from the UFO annals.

I dislike most conspiracy theories, but I do find myself gravitaring more in that direction when considering all the ins and outs of this series of events.

There are some other oddities from the surrounding area that no-one else seems to have mentioned. According to Graham Birdsall a former prison officer informed him that staff of High Point Prison in Suffolk had been advised of a potential need to evacuate persons in the jail as some kind of incident concerning national securiyy was going to take place on the night of 27th December 1980.*

I do find Ebaracum's hypothesis about certain stars being disstorted through a viewfinder as contributing to the sighting as quite a compelling one- at least as far as Halt's testimony goes (less so the lighthouse and the perseid meteors). However what this does not explain on its own is why two military men (a social group not known for flights of fancy) would get so worked up over an optical phenomena. In the podcast by Paranet that Comfortably Numb shared above, the two air base policemen interviewed are at pains to emphasise the emotional impact of the event - as though they themselves feel it to have been quite extraordinary.

The same podcast goes on to mention the possibility of experimental `psychotropic` weapons being deployed at the base - as an explanation for the conundrum. Certainly microwaves or even just some kind of infrasound could have made personnel jittery and paranoid.

It could also maybe explain why farm animals in the vicinity were reportedly acting out on those nights....

So.. piece all the above together: a test flight of an American prototype aircraft - perhaps one deploying psychtronic weaponry of some kind - and perhaps which crashed or came to grief - thus accidentally activating the weaponry? - at the Rendlesham base.

* Source: Redfern, Nicholas A Covert Agenda (London: Simon & Schuster, 1997).
Yes, you're thinking along similar lines to me. If there was some catastrophic accident to a newly developed aircraft, maybe even a field propulsion device, that had recently arrived at the base, the powers that be would have had to act quickly to cover it up as a UFO, and if all that Halt and co saw were lights in the sky and beams, as well as the red thing in the woods, they could very well have created effects like that using drones of some kind. Then to confuse matters further, they do mind control on some of the witnesses to convince them that they had seen landed craft with or without attendant aliens. The extraterrestrial card worked at Roswell, so why not try it here?

The dropping of hot or molten substances from UFOs is rare -- the Maury Island case was the first, and that's been ruled out as a hoax. But it's somewhat similar to the Cash-Landrum case, which is in the same time period as Rendlesham.

Maybe you're right that they were also testing psychotronic devices, or using them to create the secondary events of Penniston and the other more extreme alleged experiences.

Halt was clearly out of the loop but it would be interesting to look into the more senior officers for a possible connection in their careers with known black projects.

It's odd that Vallee in his Messengers of Deception mentions a high ranking retired intelligence officer who suggested to him that UFOs might have been due to a field propulsion experiment that yielded poor performance but had an unexpected effect on nearby witnesses, giving them hallucinations. Could this be relevant here?
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
There is so much detail in Robert's research I am simply going to upload the record I have of our correspondence and associated material. I'm trusting Robert would have zero objections and indeed quite the contrary.

It's raw, unedited and exactly as it should be! Although some of the contents probably look a bit naive now, that's how it was at the time.

Is the answer to your question therein?

Even from a cursory revision, there are currently some things which appear to merit revisiting, perhaps not least for myself, observations I made re Halt's tape recording way back then.

www.forteanmedia.com/R_McLean.txt

If nothing else, dare I say an engrossing Fortean read, on a very late winter's evening.

Can't believe it's actually snowing here... :cshock:
Thanks for all this amazing new information. You have so much interesting stuff.

It's been snowing here, too (Suffolk), but stopped fairly quickly Thank Heavens!
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
The dropping of hot or molten substances from UFOs is rare -
Far be it for myself to add further entanglement....

In another of our seemingly symbiotic correlations, I came across another new rediscovery only last night.

Whilst it's the only account I have seen of this, if factual, surely the only one which we would expect exists.

It's such an unexpected coincidence...

:thought:

An email on 18 April, 2001 from someone who's name I strictly dont have permission to reveal.

As always, make of it what you may...

"Well, I won't go into the chasing of balls of light through the woods and across farmers fields. I was not actually in that part of it all, so I can't really comment on it or I won't comment on that area.

However, let me tell you what I did see. What I remember is that it seemed that a craft actually landed in a clearing in that forest. The craft was about 30 to 50 feet wide and the same long, resting on a tripod landing gear.

The craft had to be rather heavy because the landing gear sunk about 6 inches into the ground where the craft landed.

Measurements between the landing gear pod prints measured approximately 15 to 20 feet. In the direct center of these prints was something resembling a residue like melted metal.

There were burn marks on the grass surrounding the site and also burn marks on the nearest trees.

The day after. A few of us went to the spot where this craft landed and took pictures and made plaster casts of the tripod prints. We simply mixed the plaster and poured it into the holes the tripod made.

We went early in the morning before the commander and all those who were still in shock could collect their senses and destroy any of the evidence in that forest.

MSgt Ray Gulyas had that idea that we should visit the site and do this. He took all the pics and the plaster cast of the tripod print".
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,107
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Far be it for myself to add further entanglement....

In another of our seemingly symbiotic correlations, I came across another new rediscovery only last night.

Whilst it's the only account I have seen of this, if factual, surely the only one which we would expect exists.

It's such an unexpected coincidence...

:thought:

An email on 18 April, 2001 from someone who's name I strictly dont have permission to reveal.

As always, make of it what you may...

"Well, I won't go into the chasing of balls of light through the woods and across farmers fields. I was not actually in that part of it all, so I can't really comment on it or I won't comment on that area.

However, let me tell you what I did see. What I remember is that it seemed that a craft actually landed in a clearing in that forest. The craft was about 30 to 50 feet wide and the same long, resting on a tripod landing gear.

The craft had to be rather heavy because the landing gear sunk about 6 inches into the ground where the craft landed.

Measurements between the landing gear pod prints measured approximately 15 to 20 feet. In the direct center of these prints was something resembling a residue like melted metal.

There were burn marks on the grass surrounding the site and also burn marks on the nearest trees.

The day after. A few of us went to the spot where this craft landed and took pictures and made plaster casts of the tripod prints. We simply mixed the plaster and poured it into the holes the tripod made.

We went early in the morning before the commander and all those who were still in shock could collect their senses and destroy any of the evidence in that forest.

MSgt Ray Gulyas had that idea that we should visit the site and do this. He took all the pics and the plaster cast of the tripod print".
If this is right, then the implication is that the accepted "landing site" where Penniston and Burroughs had their experience is a fake and their stories implanted using narcohypnosis! But what did this witness actually see -- a genuine UFO or a fairly advanced secret project? And how is it this man and a few others were able to go out and take plaster casts and photos? Why wasn't it surrounded by guards? Can't help suspecting more disinformation.
 
Top