Rendlesham Forest Incident

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Why wasn't it surrounded by guards?
Because it was a 'UFO' and they are not known to pose a hostile threat?

Perhaps encapsulated by Halt's concluding remarks to Salley Rayl.

Reflecting on the entire night's proceedings, incorporating 'beams of light' being reported near the weapons storage area:

"Then went back to the base and went home and, in disbelief, I guess".
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Maybe the UFOs came to study a new secret project?

I seem to recall a comment somewhere amongst all the info you have uploaded to the effect that the landing site has now been opened up but attempts to plant new trees there have all failed. I also seem to recall other UFO cases where something like this has been reported. Do you know if anybody has tried dowsing that area? Russian ufologists sometimes use "biolocation" on landing sites.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
However, what we do have in the documentary is Bobby Ball confirming Halt's assertion those three aerial objects operated as if carrying out a coordinated grid search.

Just another profound optical abbreviation, exactly the same one which Halt was having, at the exact same moment?
I am no longer confident about this being trustworthy evidence.

Something related I documented way back, have come across in my notes and which I must highlight:

(Start)
In "Left at East Gate", page 365, Halt is speaking with Larry Warren and, recorded on tape, states, "Bobby Ball pointed out when he saw the things in the sky, he thought it was a grid pattern and they were searching. I'm not sure I remember it that way, I remember the pattern, but I'm not sure it was a grid. There were sharp angular movements, and I'm not - I wouldn't argue with him".

In the interview with Salley Rael, he now claims, "They werestationary for a while and then they started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns, as though they were doing a grid search".
(End)
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
I am no longer confident about this being trustworthy evidence.

Something related I documented way back, have come across in my notes and which I must highlight:

(Start)
In "Left at East Gate", page 365, Halt is speaking with Larry Warren and, recorded on tape, states, "Bobby Ball pointed out when he saw the things in the sky, he thought it was a grid pattern and they were searching. I'm not sure I remember it that way, I remember the pattern, but I'm not sure it was a grid. There were sharp angular movements, and I'm not - I wouldn't argue with him".

In the interview with Salley Rael, he now claims, "They werestationary for a while and then they started to move at high speed in sharp angular patterns, as though they were doing a grid search".
(End)
Sounds as if Halt was not convinced it was a grid search, it was "as though" it was a grid search -- but they agree on the sharp angular movements. So I don't see any big conflict.

Are you relating this to the theory about autokinesis? I have grave doubts about this. Autokinesis occurs if a single bright light is seen in pitch darkness, so because there are no comparison points to assess the light's position it becomes perceptually unstable. It might happen on a dark night with an isolated star showing through a gap in the cloud cover. However, if the Halt party were all equipped with torches, lighting up the woodlands, and there were other light sources around, whether stars or distant lights from farms etc, they would not have been observing under conditions conducive to autokinesis -- they could see enough of their surroundings to negate the effects of random eye movements. If they both saw the object moving in short angular patterns, regardless of their conceptual interpretation -- "grid search" or something else -- then I would say their accounts effectively agree.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Sounds as if Halt was not convinced it was a grid search, it was "as though" it was a grid search -- but they agree on the sharp angular movements. So I don't see any big conflict.
My exact note on this, at the time, ends:

"Perhaps not a major departure". :)

Although autokenesis is something I had heard of, i wasn't entirely sure what it involved. From Wikipedia:

"The autokinetic effect is a phenomenon of visual perception in which a stationary, small point of light in an otherwise dark or featureless environment appears to move. It was first recorded by a Prussian officer keeping watch, who observed illusory movement of a star near the horizon".

There's a fascinating and detailed analysis here:

https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492003000600006&lng=pt&nrm=iso

Could it have been the explanation; absolutely.

Was it; how can we ever know.

However, one conclusion we can surely come to, is that Halt's entire recorded aerial observations, all seemingly via a stlight scope, must arguably be inadmissible evidence?
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Are you relating this to the theory about autokinesis? I have grave doubts about this. Autokinesis occurs if a single bright light is seen in pitch darkness, so because there are no comparison points to assess the light's position it becomes perceptually unstable. It might happen on a dark night with an isolated star showing through a gap in the cloud cover. However, if the Halt party were all equipped with torches, lighting up the woodlands, and there were other light sources around, whether stars or distant lights from farms etc, they would not have been observing under conditions conducive to autokinesis -- they could see enough of their surroundings to negate the effects of random eye movements. If they both saw the object moving in short angular patterns, regardless of their conceptual interpretation -- "grid search" or something else -- then I would say their accounts effectively agree.
Autokinesis can also happen in an environment with lots of dim lights, like low magnitude background stars, and a few brighter objects, like first magnitude stars and planets. This is because the sensitivity of the eye to bright stars is sufficient to allow colour vision, and the autokinetic effect can be seen more readily with the cones rather than the rods in the retina. A bright star can sometimes be seen to move against the background of dim stars.

Mind you, I'm not certain that the observers could see the dim stars in this case - but if they could, that would not prevent autokinetic movements.

I've seen very striking autokinetic effects involving bright lights apparently moving against a dim, but not featureless, background. It most certainly can be the explanation in this case, and there are many examples of observers who see apparent movements of stellar objects. The fact that several people saw this phenomenon makes it more likely, not less.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
What are we left with that second night?

The radiation readings are erroneous and regarding our, 'beams of light', no supportive evidence for this whatsoever and the one witness Halt does cite, Base Commander Ted Conrad, is seemingly on record as observing no such thing at all.

As for the blue light Burroughs, situated on the periphery, describes as flying straight through the open windows of a truck and the light-alls going off and then back on at the same moment...

I have testimonies from others that the light-alls were generally unreliable and, 'played up all night'.

They were also gas powered.

So, we have a seemingly quite small blue light, flying through a countryside environment at night, where there is a close light source.

There are similar accounts online and the source identified as a large moth, brightly illuminated by a light source.

If we keep in mind that all three participents that first night were so alarmed by what sounded like a woman screaming and doubtless the forests's indigenous Muntjac deer (also known as a 'screaming' or 'barking' deer), that it was later related they all, "hit the dirt", is this an unrealistic explanation?
 

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...
In aforementioned tape recording of Halt's discussions with Larry Warren, Halt states he subsequently went back over what had been been documented on his own recording and had discussed same with Ball and Veranno.

Capt Veranno was a Shift Commander and sounds like maybe our other member from Halt's assembled team of five?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Autokinesis can also happen in an environment with lots of dim lights, like low magnitude background stars, and a few brighter objects, like first magnitude stars and planets.
I've had a thorough search on YouTube and can't find any videos showing this effect... :thought:

:)
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,827
Reaction score
31,229
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
A final decision as to the validity of apparent movement in stars can't be simplistically reduced to whether or not an autokinetic effect was in play.

For one thing, an indeterminate yet admitted proportion of the reported observations were seen through portable Starlight scopes. As with any intermediate visual device, the accuracy one can attribute to an observed object's position and / or motion(s) depends on how steady the device remains. Unless the scopes were fixed to (e.g.) tripods there's little confidence one can attribute to an object's apparent perceived motion when seen through them.

Especially on the second night these guys were trooping cross-country, often inside or skirting forested areas. The combination of their personal movements and certain (if intermittent) interference from the foliage around them makes for a high risk of mistaking one object for another and / or attributing excessive motion to an object seen from two different locations. If you look at the star chart I posted some pages earlier you'll see there was a plethora of bright stars, the moon, and even a planetary conjunction in the southern sky at the time.

Another factor no one seems to appreciate is that a Starlight scope is not a straightforward pass-through optical device like a telescope. Incoming light is received onto a grid or matrix of sensor nodes, and it is the processed or derivative mapping of these nodes (pixel-points, if you will ... ) that the observer's eye sees. In other words, it's a relatively low-resolution synthetic image subject to all sorts of distortions and variance. These quirks are most common when there are one or more relatively bright objects within the scene being viewed through the scope.

The autokinetic effect requires the observer to focus on a scene from a fixed orientation. Unless any of the guys reporting star movements had been standing still and staring fixedly at a particular star for at least a couple of minutes (if not more ... ) autokinesis is arguably the least likely explanation for reported movements. The issues noted above - plus others - provide plenty of basis for erroneous attribution of motion.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
A final decision as to the validity of apparent movement in stars can't be simplistically reduced to whether or not an autokinetic effect was in play.
Fabulous summary of the overall subject.

It has occurred that I can occasionally see stars which, if I look at for a short time are not stars, they turn out to be airplanes, visually moving.

It takes a while to realise they haven't moved at all and are actually stars.

Would something like this be symptomatic?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,612
Reaction score
6,723
Points
309
It has occurred that I can occasionally see stars which, if I look at for a short time are not stars, they turn out to be airplanes, visually moving.

It takes a while to realise they haven't moved at all and are actually stars.

Would something like this be symptomatic?
That's true - I do a fair bit of satellite spotting, and especially when there's patchy cloud and a strong breeze it can throw reference points to pot: stars appear to move until you realise it's the clouds. See also flightpaths, as we're on more than one including an approach, seeing a plane oncoming at night will appear static for a relatively long time until it banks. No matter how experienced you are, these things can (albeit momentarily) catch you unaware.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,125
Points
203
Does anyone know it the afforementioned plaster casts and photos of the tripod landing gear are still around?
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
I've had a thorough search on YouTube and can't find any videos showing this effect...
No, you won't, as it appears to be entirely an artifact of the eye-brain system, and can't be reproduced electronically. A recent theory is that we use peripheral vision to establish our orientation, and a completely different, highly focussed form of vision to observe small points of light, and the two do not always agree. It may not be connected to involuntary eye movements after all.

The most dramatic example of autokinesis I've seen wasn't in astronomy, but involved a 'miraculous' moving statue; in Nice many decades ago I saw a statue of the Virgin Mary in a dimly lit niche, which had a brilliantly lit crown of tiny lights. The lights appeared to 'jiggle' about independently of the statue, and even having the statue as a reference I couldn't eliminate the effect. This seems to suggest that you don't need to have a featureless region around the light for the effect to work.

One interesting aspect of autokinesis is that it can be subject to mass reinforcement and suggestion; if there are other people there who can see it, the effect takes longer to fade. On the other hand negative suggestions can make the effect fade more quickly. In other words you need a skeptic on hand to dispel the effect. This may have relevance to Rendlesham, where no-one seems to have been familiar with the phenomenon, so there was no one to suggest that the effect would fade over time.
autokinesis.png

The effect doesn't seem to have been actually amplified very much by the expectation of 'more' movement, but the suggestion that 'less' movement would occur resulted in a marked reduction in the effect. So a practiced observer would probably barely notice the effect at all.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03211337.pdf
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
From Ridpath’s investigation, which having been conducted close to the time of the incident probably gives a more accurate telling of events without the clouds of obfuscation we have to wade through today.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.html

1617781500742.jpeg

‍Night ‍light: ‍‍I ‍took ‍this ‍photograph ‍looking ‍east ‍from ‍within ‍Rendlesham ‍Forest ‍on ‍my ‍second ‍visit ‍there, ‍
in ‍1983 ‍November. ‍The ‍Orford ‍Ness ‍lighthouse ‍is ‍the ‍bright ‍yellow-white ‍light ‍at ‍right ‍of ‍centre, ‍seen ‍between ‍trees ‍that ‍were ‍still ‍standing ‍at ‍the ‍forest ‍edge, ‍although ‍the ‍area ‍in ‍which ‍I ‍was ‍standing ‍had ‍by ‍then ‍been ‍cleared. ‍Two ‍other ‍whitish ‍lights ‍left ‍of ‍centre ‍were ‍on ‍a ‍building ‍or ‍buildings ‍in ‍the ‍valley ‍(or ‍perhaps ‍even ‍streetlights), ‍which ‍I ‍did ‍not ‍identify ‍at ‍the ‍time. ‍At ‍far ‍left ‍are ‍two ‍red ‍lights ‍on ‍tall ‍aerials ‍on ‍Orford ‍Ness ‍itself. ‍Click ‍on ‍the ‍image ‍for ‍a ‍larger ‍version. ‍(Ian ‍Ridpath)
‍On ‍a ‍separate ‍page ‍you ‍can ‍see ‍‍other ‍photographs ‍of ‍the ‍area ‍taken ‍during ‍my ‍visit ‍in ‍1983 ‍November, ‍
including ‍a ‍daytime ‍view ‍of ‍these ‍same ‍trees.
Some ‍weeks ‍later ‍[in ‍1983 ‍November] ‍I ‍returned ‍to ‍Rendlesham ‍Forest ‍in ‍search ‍of ‍answers. ‍The ‍landing ‍marks ‍had ‍long ‍since ‍been ‍destroyed ‍when ‍the ‍trees ‍were ‍felled, ‍but ‍I ‍now ‍knew ‍an ‍eyewitness ‍who ‍had ‍seen ‍them: ‍Vince ‍Thurkettle. ‍He ‍recalled ‍for ‍me ‍his ‍disappointment ‍with ‍what ‍he ‍saw.

‍The ‍‍three ‍depressions ‍were ‍irregular ‍in ‍shape ‍and ‍did ‍not ‍even ‍form ‍a ‍symmetrical ‍triangle. ‍He ‍recognized ‍them ‍as ‍rabbit ‍diggings, ‍several ‍months ‍old ‍and ‍covered ‍with ‍a ‍layer ‍of ‍fallen ‍pine ‍needles. ‍They ‍lay ‍in ‍an ‍area ‍surrounded ‍by ‍75ft-tall ‍pine ‍trees ‍planted ‍10ft ‍to ‍15ft ‍apart ‍– ‍scarcely ‍the ‍place ‍to ‍land ‍a ‍20ft-wide ‍spacecraft. ‍[Note: ‍this ‍is ‍one ‍of ‍the ‍various ‍estimates ‍of ‍size ‍that ‍have ‍been ‍made. ‍Witness ‍Jim ‍Penniston ‍has ‍said ‍the ‍object ‍was ‍‘the ‍size ‍of ‍a ‍tank’ ‍although ‍Halt’s ‍memo ‍described ‍it ‍as ‍2–3 ‍metres ‍across].

‍The ‍‘burn ‍marks’ ‍on ‍the ‍trees ‍were ‍axe ‍cuts ‍in ‍the ‍bark, ‍made ‍by ‍the ‍foresters ‍themselves ‍as ‍a ‍sign ‍that ‍the ‍trees ‍were ‍ready ‍to ‍be ‍felled. ‍I ‍saw ‍numerous ‍examples ‍in ‍which ‍the ‍pine ‍resin, ‍bubbling ‍into ‍the ‍cut, ‍gives ‍the ‍impression ‍of ‍a ‍burn ‍[‍see ‍photos ‍below].
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/images/rendlesham2-451.jpg
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/images/rendlesham3-451.jpg
 
Last edited:

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
What ‍had ‍made ‍the ‍airmen ‍think ‍that ‍something ‍had ‍crashed ‍into ‍the ‍forest ‍in ‍the ‍first ‍place? ‍I ‍already ‍knew ‍from ‍previous ‍UFO ‍cases ‍that ‍a ‍brilliant ‍meteor, ‍a ‍piece ‍of ‍natural ‍debris ‍from ‍space ‍burning ‍up ‍in ‍the ‍atmosphere, ‍could ‍give ‍such ‍an ‍impression. ‍But ‍I ‍was ‍unable ‍to ‍find ‍records ‍of ‍such ‍a ‍meteor ‍on ‍the ‍morning ‍of ‍December ‍27 ‍[the ‍date ‍given ‍in ‍Halt’s ‍memo].

‍Here ‍the ‍police ‍account ‍provided ‍a ‍vital ‍lead ‍by ‍showing ‍that ‍Col ‍Halt’s ‍memo, ‍written ‍two ‍weeks ‍after ‍the ‍event, ‍had ‍got ‍the ‍date ‍of ‍the ‍first ‍sighting ‍wrong. ‍It ‍occurred ‍on ‍December ‍26, ‍not ‍December ‍27.

‍With ‍this ‍corrected ‍date, ‍I ‍telephoned ‍Dr ‍John ‍Mason, ‍who ‍collects ‍reports ‍of ‍such ‍sightings ‍for ‍the ‍British ‍Astronomical ‍Association. ‍He ‍told ‍me ‍that ‍shortly ‍before ‍3 ‍am ‍on ‍December ‍26 ‍‍an ‍exceptionally ‍brilliant ‍meteor, ‍almost ‍as ‍bright ‍as ‍the ‍full ‍Moon, ‍had ‍been ‍seen ‍over ‍southern ‍England. ‍Dr ‍Mason ‍confirmed ‍that ‍this ‍meteor ‍would ‍have ‍been ‍visible ‍to ‍the ‍airmen ‍at ‍Woodbridge ‍as ‍though ‍something ‍were ‍crashing ‍into ‍the ‍forest ‍nearby. ‍The ‍time ‍of ‍the ‍sighting ‍matched ‍that ‍given ‍in ‍Col ‍Halt’s ‍memo.
‍UFO ‍hunters ‍will ‍continue ‍to ‍believe ‍that ‍an ‍alien ‍spaceship ‍landed ‍in ‍Rendlesham ‍Forest ‍that ‍night. ‍But ‍I ‍know ‍that ‍the ‍first ‍sighting ‍coincided ‍with ‍the ‍burn-up ‍in ‍the ‍atmosphere ‍of ‍an ‍exceptionally ‍bright ‍meteor, ‍and ‍that ‍the ‍airmen ‍who ‍saw ‍the ‍flashing ‍UFO ‍between ‍the ‍pine ‍trees ‍were ‍looking ‍straight ‍at ‍the ‍Orford ‍Ness ‍lighthouse. ‍The ‍rest ‍of ‍the ‍case ‍is ‍a ‍marvellous ‍product ‍of ‍human ‍imagination.
I’m pretty certain there was no Alien craft but a meteor and a lighthouse lamp multiplied by imagination.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
...an indeterminate yet admitted proportion of the reported observations were seen through portable Starlight scopes. As with any intermediate visual device, the accuracy one can attribute to an observed object's position and / or motion(s) depends on how steady the device remains. Unless the scopes were fixed to (e.g.) tripods there's little confidence one can attribute to an object's apparent perceived motion when seen through them.

Especially on the second night these guys were trooping cross-country, often inside or skirting forested areas. The combination of their personal movements and certain (if intermittent) interference from the foliage around them makes for a high risk of mistaking one object for another and / or attributing excessive motion to an object seen from two different locations. If you look at the star chart I posted some pages earlier you'll see there was a plethora of bright stars, the moon, and even a planetary conjunction in the southern sky at the time.

Another factor no one seems to appreciate is that a Starlight scope is not a straightforward pass-through optical device like a telescope. Incoming light is received onto a grid or matrix of sensor nodes, and it is the processed or derivative mapping of these nodes (pixel-points, if you will ... ) that the observer's eye sees. In other words, it's a relatively low-resolution synthetic image subject to all sorts of distortions and variance. These quirks are most common when there are one or more relatively bright objects within the scene being viewed through the scope.
Absolutely. I'm sure the Starlight scope contributed most of the noise in this data, as I've said before. But Ball and other observers seem to have seen the objects moving even when they were not holding the scope, and autokinesis may explain that.

If they were really unskilled at using the scope, there is one object that would have been the source of much brighter lens-flare effects than anything else in the sky; the Moon was up there, and it would have been sending out 'needle-thin' rays even when it was out of direct vision. Perhaps some of the beams that 'fell at their feet' were lens flare artefacts caused by the Moon.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,125
Points
203
Absolutely. I'm sure the Starlight scope contributed most of the noise in this data, as I've said before. But Ball and other observers seem to have seen the objects moving even when they were not holding the scope, and autokinesis may explain that.

If they were really unskilled at using the scope, there is one object that would have been the source of much brighter lens-flare effects than anything else in the sky; the Moon was up there, and it would have been sending out 'needle-thin' rays even when it was out of direct vision. Perhaps some of the beams that 'fell at their feet' were lens flare artefacts caused by the Moon.
Wasnt there a story of one of the men seeing a craft on the ground and describing strange 'writing' on the hull, or was that a different encounter? I may be confusing it.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
Wasnt there a story of one of the men seeing a craft on the ground and describing strange 'writing' on the hull, or was that a different encounter? I may be confusing it.
Yes there is. But according to Ridpath, this information is also problematic.

Summary

Potentially one of the most explosive documents in the Rendlesham Forest case – if not all of UFOlogy – is the notebook allegedly made by Sergeant Jim Penniston during the UFO encounter experienced by himself, John Burroughs, and Ed Cabansag in December 1980. The notebook contains descriptions of a landed craft of unknown origin (see below) that Penniston claims to have examined for 45 minutes and even touched, along with sketches of hieroglyphic inscriptions he says were engraved on its side. None of the other witnesses that night claims to have seen any such craft, only lights. Hence this document deserves closer scrutiny than it has hitherto received. The results raise serious doubts about its authenticity.

Wrong date and time

Penniston first showed this notebook publicly on the Sci Fi channel documentary UFO Invasion at Rendlesham broadcast in 2003 December. (This is the same notebook which in 2010 December we were told also contained many pages of telepathically downloaded binary code, but more of that in the 30th anniversary update, below.) Immediately we can see a problem – the notebook contains the wrong date and time for the event.
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.html

Definitely worth a read.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
Also worth mentioning....

More about Penniston’s ‘craft of unknown origin’

Penniston usually refers to what he allegedly encountered as being ‘a craft of unknown origin’ but has specifically and repeatedly denied that it was extraterrestrial. So where was it from? After undergoing regression hypnosis in September 1994 he seems to have become convinced that it was a craft from tens of thousands of years in the Earth’s future. According to what Penniston told the hypnotist, it contained our distant descendants returning to obtain genetic material to keep their ailing species alive: ‘They are time travellers. They are us,’ he said.

It sounds like the plot of a B movie, and very possibly that’s where it came from. A TV movie called Official Denial was broadcast on the Sci Fi channel in November 1993 and was released on video in May 1994, both within a year prior to Penniston’s hypnosis. In it, an alien craft is shot down by the USAF and lands in a forest. It contains creatures that are here  ‘To get genetic material to help them reproduce because their race is dying out.’ And where are they from? ‘They’re not aliens. They’re us. From the future – our future.’ The similarities with Penniston’s story including the statement ‘They are us’ are striking. This would not be the first time that a UFO witness under hypnosis has told a story from false memory based on a TV show. (Thanks to Stephan Könen for the tip-off and Adrian Frearson for help with research.)
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.html


Official Denial (TV Movie 1993) - Plot Summary Poster
Official Denial (1993 TV Movie)
Plot
Showing all 1 items
Jump to:
Summaries
  • A man who claims to have been abducted by aliens is also abducted by a top secret government agency, the Majestic Group, who want him to attempt to communicate with the only surviving alien from a UFO shot down by the Air Force. Telepathically, the alien tells him it must be returned to its ship, where it will reveal a secret vital to the future of the planet.
    Alexander Lum <[email protected]>
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,403
Reaction score
11,937
Points
279
Location
Phone
Also worth mentioning....
You have reminded of an extraordinary film related coincidence from the early 1980s (?).

Wasn't there a film about an incident at a USAF base in England and a subsequent cover-up by the government?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
5,125
Points
203

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
11,861
Points
309
Ridpath again on the meteor that sparked the story of a crashed UFO....

News of the World Rendlesham UFO headline

The British Astronomical Association’s Meteor Section Newsletter no. 4 (1981 February) summarized the various events of the night of 1980 December 25–26, including a brilliant fireball at 02.50 on December 26. The timing of this fireball matches the appearance of the bright object in the sky seen by security guards at Woodbridge air base that sparked off the Rendlesham Forest UFO chase.


Many believers have Rendlesham as the smoking gun of the proof aliens are visiting. Quite simply, this case is too important to be false. If Rendlesham is genuine misidentification, disinformation, hoax or even fantasy, what hope have other cases got?
 
Last edited:

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,376
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Autokinesis can also happen in an environment with lots of dim lights, like low magnitude background stars, and a few brighter objects, like first magnitude stars and planets. This is because the sensitivity of the eye to bright stars is sufficient to allow colour vision, and the autokinetic effect can be seen more readily with the cones rather than the rods in the retina. A bright star can sometimes be seen to move against the background of dim stars.

Mind you, I'm not certain that the observers could see the dim stars in this case - but if they could, that would not prevent autokinetic movements.

I've seen very striking autokinetic effects involving bright lights apparently moving against a dim, but not featureless, background. It most certainly can be the explanation in this case, and there are many examples of observers who see apparent movements of stellar objects. The fact that several people saw this phenomenon makes it more likely, not less.
Interesting observations. In any case, given that, as I pointed out, the immediate area would have been fairly well illuminated, my judgment would be that autokinesis would have played little part. It certainly wouldn't have explained the red thing flying through the woods nor the (now a quite substantial 1 foot wide) beam five yards in front of the group.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
I'm tending towards the Starlight scope being responsible for the beam phenomenon, but I could easily be wrong. The red/yellow light may have been a simple sodium lamp, which Halt may have been unfamiliar with.
 
Top