Rendlesham Forest Incident

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Yes, that was one of the many things he made up years after the event.
I wrote:

"Additionally, is the fact Halt's recollection of the small red light exploding into five white lights is evidenced as a mistake".

It goes right back to his memo!

"Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five seperate objects and then disappeared".
 

charliebrown

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
704
Reaction score
885
Points
93
Location
Earth
If it looks, talks, and walks like a duck, it must be a duck.

The Rendlesham event was a UFO.

Senator Marco Rubio of the Senate Intelligence committee a while back on national TV said that we must find out why these UAPs are so interested in military installations particularly if these installations have nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
It goes right back to his memo!
On the subject of Halt's memo, merely some observations:

"The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest. The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high".

Incorrect: Only Penniston reported seeing an actual object.


"The object was hovering or on legs".

Incorrect: Again, only Penniston claimed to witness an object.


"As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared".

Incorrect: Only Penniston described a "zig-zagging manner back through the woods" and Burroughs, in his testimony, observed the same lights, never an object, adjacent to the farmer's house.


"The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate".

Incorrect: There is no such account and Halt seems to be referring to the brief sighting of a blue light, 'to the left' as testified by Burroughs and Penniston, on their way back.


"Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared".

Incorrect: As evidenced in Halt's microcassette recording, the five white lights were a later and entirely separate observation.


"The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time".

Incorrect: According to Halt's recording, it was first observed at 03:15 and his last taped memo was 04:00. Halt has explained it was thereafter that they returned to base.


"Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 and 3".

Incorrect: Whilst 'paragraph 2' relates solely to the geiger counter, 'paragraph 3' encompasses, "a red sun-like light...moved about and pulsed...appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects...".


That aside, is the following a possible connection from Halt's memo:

"The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high"

"...two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high...".

Does this tie-up with our unsourced Penniston drawing?

Within same, I read text above the object, describing length as, "APPROX 3 METRES" and at left, describing height as, "APPROX 2 METRES".

Halt continues:

"The next day, three depressions 1 1/2" deep and 7" in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground".

I also read Penniston's note, next to his illustration of the believed, 'landing marks' as indicating they were 7" in diameter.

[For sketch, see post #992 (page 34)]
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
22,176
Reaction score
32,049
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
One puzzling event which has mystified Colonel Halt ever since that 'fateful week', concerns the arrival of an unscheduled C141 Galaxy transporter just hours after the encounter. He confirmed he knew nothing about its purpose, or why a group of 'special individuals' departed the aircraft and headed immediately out to the East Gate and into the forest". ...

NOTE: Even though it's not the case that all USAF personnel are familiar with all the service's aircraft it's odd that Halt referred to the mystery visitor this way, because there's no such aircraft.

C-141 = Large air transport = Starlifter
C-5 = Extra-Large air transport = Galaxy

The C-141 was the commonly seen workhorse airlifter at the time. The C-5 was a special use airlifter that wasn't seen all that often. It would be odd to mistake one for the other.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
One has unearthed critical lost archives... :bomb:

To begin with:

Hello Mr Easton,
You have found the correct person. The discrepancy was mine. Col Halt is
correct. What I handed to the A-10 pilot was an audio tape and a document,
not a video. At the time, I was not sure what the package was. I never saw
a video of the incident. I had heard (hearsay) of someone taking videos but
I don't know who it was. At the time I believed I was handing this,
probably non-existent video to the pilot. Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Dr Mike Verano
(End)

So that A-10 flight happened.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
John Burroughs wrote:

James
Here goes! As far as the weapons go there was a mix up Penniston was told to leave the M-16 and have me carry my 38. Steffens had us leave all are weapons with him. And here some new info when we got close to what ever it was Penniston thought I was armed and told me to open up on it. I kept telling him I did not have my weapon but he felt threaten enough to want me to open up on it.
(End)

Of, 'no defence significance'...?
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Second night's events:

James, all I can say for now is I and Bustinza were running towards it and Bustinza fell to the ground. He told me after words that he felt something push him down and then would not let him back up. I then felt like I was almost next to the object and all of a sudden I was out in the middle of the field by myself and I didn't know why. I could not account for about 15 min of time.
(End)
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Second night's events:

Burroughs explained:

"Col halt's tape leaves alot out especially at the 3:00 am enconter. Also there is a missing recording of all of the radio traffic that went on. That alone what blow this whole thing wide open".
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Second Night's events:

"James, There were no exercises what so ever during Christmas period. Yes I was there when that happened there also was beams of lights being sent into the WSA at Bentwaters".
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,450
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Second Night's events:

"James, There were no exercises what so ever during Christmas period. Yes I was there when that happened there also was beams of lights being sent into the WSA at Bentwaters".
I think you need some computer wizard to feed all the statements into a sophisticated program and try to make some sense out of it all. The numbers of separate observations seems to be continually growing with each of your posts. And the details are constantly varying. Either everybody concerned was totally incompetent or -- is the confusion quite intentional? The info about the mystery aircraft and its team of specialists(?) is also ambiguous, of course -- is it a team to clean up and create disinformation to cover up a black project accident or a team to investigate a genuine UFO sighting?
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Additionally:

"One more thing Mike Jenkins statement makes no sense what so ever. The Woodbridge WSA was not being used as a WSA period. Plus no one would have been working on Sun mourning. We did not have anyone posted there we only made checks on it. The only thing in there was regular munitions. The only way it makes sense is if something was recovered and was stored there. And the personnel there were the people who came in to check out the scene. Yes there were people brought in and they were out in the forest for days. I was even posted on the east gate for 3 days from 1500-2300 while helicopters and personnel were out in the area. I was told not to call anything in no matter what I saw. The reason I was put out there was because I had been involved in the incident"
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
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.
I do have permission - a follow-up:

"This is all getting to be very interesting to me again, however, I must
not be hasty. In reference to your last inquiry, I shall answer some of
what you asked here now, then I will consider each of the other
questions or points seperately...

(...)

You asked: <detecting, possibly 'without permission'.>>
Remember now, I visited the site the next day; this is the next day
after the alleged incident happened. In fact, it wasn't a whole day as
the incident happened in the very latest hours of the previous night and
the early hours of the morning. Those indentations were about as fresh
as a new baby's bum. They were perfectly round and pressed into the
soil between 4 and 6 inches I'd guess. I never measured them with a tool
of any kind, but this is a good educated guess.


In those days I was an amatuer treasure hunter myself with some years of
training and experience, and a couple of rare finds to my credit. I
would have known the difference. You see, there is a certain technique
that good treasure hunters use to dig their holes, and yes we do dig
round holes, for a good reason. However, those indentations were much
too perfect to be the result of such digging. For one thing, when we
experienced and well-meaning treasure hunters dig an area, we ALWAYS AND
WITHOUT FAIL, replace the dirt into the hole it came out of. If grass
was there, we are careful to replace it and water it. And even a sloppy
THer would leave his dirt lying to the side of the hole, but there was
no dirt, just the indentations. In other words, you could clearly see
that these holes were not dug, they were pressed inward. That much was
very obvious. As for the metal residue being the result of treasure
hunting, no way! It had no dirt on it at all and didn't give the
appearance of having been placed there from some other location. If it
was planted there to throw someone off, it fooled me".

James D. Caston
(End)
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,663
Reaction score
6,854
Points
309
Sorry to backtrack just slightly, but as a point of terminology:
Rendlesham is not a deep, dank ancient English woodland full of fae, piskies and unicorns. It is a modern commercial pine farm.
As recently as 1907, the area was open land with belts of trees:
The term 'forest' in the middle ages denoted any tract of land reserved for hunting and thus deliberately left uncultivated, so not just woods but open moorland, wetlands etc. It only morphed its meaning into primarily woodland in the late 18th century so Rendlesham forest was most likely a very old name for the whole area that became associated with the trees. Which leads me on to..
There again as you say anywhere can be spooky. I used to do a lot of walking in the planted forestry land in Wales and there were some parts that used to feel really weird.

Maybe the spirits have been hanging around since the ancient forest days and are only too grateful to have some sort of cover again, even a 1920's apology for a forest will do. :)
There are quite a lot of reports of weirdness to do with 'new' woodlands. It would seem trees themselves are just as active an ingredient as any ancient provenance, though the two together make for a potent combination.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,450
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Additionally:

"One more thing Mike Jenkins statement makes no sense what so ever. The Woodbridge WSA was not being used as a WSA period. Plus no one would have been working on Sun mourning. We did not have anyone posted there we only made checks on it. The only thing in there was regular munitions. The only way it makes sense is if something was recovered and was stored there. And the personnel there were the people who came in to check out the scene. Yes there were people brought in and they were out in the forest for days. I was even posted on the east gate for 3 days from 1500-2300 while helicopters and personnel were out in the area. I was told not to call anything in no matter what I saw. The reason I was put out there was because I had been involved in the incident"
"if something was recovered and stored there..."!
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
The Cash-Landrum case and why Burroughs' account of small, twin blade helicopters, in the exact same time-frame, was of interest.

Again, this dates from circa 20 years ago.

(Start)
dear jim. the second attempt ''honey badger'' was never executed as fortunately the hostages were released.

Its planning and training were top secret at the time. It was as you quoted '' a desperate response to a very desperate situation ''.

Since then i have never read a complete or accurate account of what took place out there in the western mountains and deserts between may 1980 to dec 1980.

We only find bits and pieces here and there. Even the nightstalker website description of operation honey badger is flawed.

Its probably due to the fact that the operation or operations had a sort of planning creep due to a changing hostage situation and or location.

Different people participating in that later stages from the former. .'' Honey badger''.

The training that i participated in started in late may 1980 and was completed by aug 1980 .We fully expected to deploy at that time.

However we were released sworn to secrecy back to our home base at Fort Campbell Ky.

That training '', honey badger'' involved the original cast operating out of Norton AFB California , Dugway Proving Gounds Utah and White Sands new mexico.

There were no OH-6 involved then. Only army Uh-60s, Ch-47ds and air force H-53 pavelow helicopters and c-130 aircraft.

Iam sure the "honey badger" execution was to be very similar to the first rescue attempt. The one main weakness of the first attempt was the helicopter element.

That is, we had Marine pilots flying Navy helos conducting an army aviation mission. Long range night vision goggle flights through mountains and over desert.

The problem with army aviation in april 1980 was we were not trained to that capabilities we had just received the uh-60 so in may 1980.

A decision was made to obtain that mission capability using the uh-60 and conduct the second attempt to free the hostages using army aviation ...

...flying delta force and army rangers in army uh-60s supported by army ch-47d, air force h-53 pavelow and c-130 transports.

That was "operation honey badger. After returning to Ft Campbell add on operations such as "poison dart" "storm cloud" and '' sabre tooth'.

They took place from aug 1980 until dec 1980. of which i have only second hand in formation i did not participate.

That's when the oh-6 little bird was added to the the original task force with an entirely new plan in mind.

Thats the training witnessed by your frieds in in texas.

LTC Theo Middleton.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Just thinking aloud...

The triangular shaped object's size as described in Penniston's sketch is 2-3 meters in length and therefore relatively small for an aerial vehicle .

The flashing lights remind of a drone flying at night.

Merely note that this particular drone (shown to scale) was the product of a top-secret US military program in the late 1970s:

bc6fbc2e33a96b686ad9b988a4f2e917_resize_29.jpg


6691140331_bce184fb66_resize_22.jpg


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/teledyne-ryan-model-262-manta-ray-star.18444/
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,450
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Just thinking aloud...

The triangular shaped object's size as described in Penniston's sketch is 2-3 meters in length and therefore relatively small for an aerial vehicle .

The flashing lights remind of a drone flying at night.

Merely note that this particular drone (shown to scale) was the product of a top-secret US military program in the late 1970s:

View attachment 38902

View attachment 38903

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/teledyne-ryan-model-262-manta-ray-star.18444/
And I am thinking that it wouldn't be difficult to modify its appearance so that it looked like some kind of alien device. Great detective work!
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
And I am thinking that it wouldn't be difficult to modify its appearance so that it looked like some kind of alien device.
Just add some lights!

Remember this case...:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/things-that-are-not-ufos.45763/post-2001707

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/things-that-are-not-ufos.45763/post-2004558

I'm not suggesting this is an explanation, you would seemingly need a drone capable of a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL).

Is 1980 too early for this...

Still looking into it.

One obvious problem with the supposed landing marks and the size of the object it suggests, is how could something that large manoeuvre through the trees, as shown:

forest_2.jpg


I am personally unconvinced about either!

Even if smaller, it would take extraordinary skill to move through the dense forest without hitting a tree.

Also, why would such a thing need to go through the forest, if it could simply fly over the tree tops.

I have long suspected the source of our lights was always in the clearing and misperceived to originally be within the trees and then moving away between them.
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
I'm not suggesting this is an explanation, you would seemingly need a drone capable of a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL).

Is 1980 too early for this...

Still looking into it.
Merely for interest and because it looks intriguing.

If you came across this, you might be mystified!

The Westland Wideye (UK), dates from 1977 and llustrates the interest in developing VTOL spy drones even at that date.

Screenshot_20210506-033501~2.jpg
 

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
A new image of the contemporary Teledyne Mantra drone and simply for interest, a comparison with Penniston's sketch which appeared publicly in more recent years.

Obviously, there stills seems no connection with events our first night and presumably no more than coincidence.

It's certainly a close resemblance though and the first was developed as a top-secret drone, whilst the other unquestionably behaved exactly like a drone.

They would both be a similar size.

6691150107_bbab5db8e2_b~3.jpg


JPDRAW1~2_resize_35.jpg
 
Last edited:

Comfortably Numb

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
7,599
Reaction score
12,121
Points
279
Location
Phone
Again, merely for information, these are extracts from Penniston's interviews with American journalist AJS Rayl, during the mid-1990s.

These relate solely to the object's drone-like flightol characteristics, as described therein and for this exercise, taken at face value.

There's nothing concerning associated lights, or the object's surface composition.

These can be found in full interview transcripts, previously highlighted.

If comparing the following flight technology with the late 1970s Teledyne Manta Ray, note that the Manta Ray was, a "small delta-shaped glassfibre vehicle powered by a McCulloch MC-101 engine which drove a small ducted propeller. These features ensured inherently low radar, infrared and noise signatures".

(Start)
"Airman Burroughs and I then headed on foot toward the tree line, approximately 50 meters away, beyond which was a clearing -- which is where the activity, the lights were coming from."

"We entered the tree line and moved in about 20 more meters. There was an object sitting in a clearing".

"I got to within 10 feet of the craft and the clearing where it sat. I estimated it to be about three meters tall and about three meters wide at the base.

No landing gear was apparent, but it seemed like she was on fixed legs"

"The next thing I knew, I was standing about 20 feet away from the craft with Burroughs, who I thought I had left back near the tree line. The craft moved up off the ground, about three feet, still with absolutely no sound. It started to move slowly, weaving back through the trees at a very slow pace, maybe a half a foot per second.

It took about a couple of minutes for it to manoeuvre itself back to a distance of about 100 to 150 feet, then it rose up just over the trees, about 200 feet high. There was a momentary pause -- and then literally with the blink of an eye it was gone".

"...there was no absolutely no sound generated from this craft that I observed. Plus, on take-off, there was no thrust".
(End)
 

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
4,424
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
Even if smaller, it would take extraordinary skill to move through the dense forest without hitting a tree.

Never made any sense to me either.

Something like that would be both unable to fly through a tightly packed pine woods and next to impossile to rise up and fly through the forest canopy.


I mean it's almost like...ahem...
 
Last edited:

Coastaljames

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
4,424
Points
159
Location
East Norfolk coast
Maybe the spirits have been hanging around since the ancient forest days and are only too grateful to have some sort of cover again, even a 1920's apology for a forest will do. :)

I totally agree dear Solly. I was not at all trying to say - this forest is modern and commerical therefore no spooky stuff could happen there. I was just trying give a bit of context about the place to people who may not have visited. It wasn't meant to have any bearing on the likelihood of wyrd stuff occuring there :)
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,450
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Just add some lights!

Remember this case...:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/things-that-are-not-ufos.45763/post-2001707

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/things-that-are-not-ufos.45763/post-2004558

I'm not suggesting this is an explanation, you would seemingly need a drone capable of a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL).

Is 1980 too early for this...

Still looking into it.

One obvious problem with the supposed landing marks and the size of the object it suggests, is how could something that large manoeuvre through the trees, as shown:

View attachment 38945

I am personally unconvinced about either!

Even if smaller, it would take extraordinary skill to move through the dense forest without hitting a tree.

Also, why would such a thing need to go through the forest, if it could simply fly over the tree tops.

I have long suspected the source of our lights was always in the clearing and misperceived to originally be within the trees and then moving away between them.
If the triangle marked above marked the positions of the alleged landing gear, then clearly the object couldn't have easily descended into a relatively small clearing. On the other hand, if the marks had been added as part of a deception operation designed to focus attention away from the genuine crash site, then it was probably done hurriedly and without much thought. Maybe the reason Penniston's story changed so often was the problems they had coming up with a plausible scenario for an ET landing there. There is a huge mismatch, for example, between the appearance of the object in a brilliant flash of light and its departure very slowly finding its way through the branches.
 

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,450
Points
159
Location
Bury St Edmunds
Again, merely for information, these are extracts from Penniston's interviews with American journalist AJS Rayl, during the mid-1990s.

These relate solely to the object's drone-like flightol characteristics, as described therein and for this exercise, taken at face value.

There's nothing concerning associated lights, or the object's surface composition.

These can be found in full interview transcripts, previously highlighted.

If comparing the following flight technology with the late 1970s Teledyne Manta Ray, note that the Manta Ray was, a "small delta-shaped glassfibre vehicle powered by a McCulloch MC-101 engine which drove a small ducted propeller. These features ensured inherently low radar, infrared and noise signatures".

(Start)
"Airman Burroughs and I then headed on foot toward the tree line, approximately 50 meters away, beyond which was a clearing -- which is where the activity, the lights were coming from."

"We entered the tree line and moved in about 20 more meters. There was an object sitting in a clearing".

"I got to within 10 feet of the craft and the clearing where it sat. I estimated it to be about three meters tall and about three meters wide at the base.

No landing gear was apparent, but it seemed like she was on fixed legs"

"The next thing I knew, I was standing about 20 feet away from the craft with Burroughs, who I thought I had left back near the tree line. The craft moved up off the ground, about three feet, still with absolutely no sound. It started to move slowly, weaving back through the trees at a very slow pace, maybe a half a foot per second.

It took about a couple of minutes for it to manoeuvre itself back to a distance of about 100 to 150 feet, then it rose up just over the trees, about 200 feet high. There was a momentary pause -- and then literally with the blink of an eye it was gone".

"...there was no absolutely no sound generated from this craft that I observed. Plus, on take-off, there was no thrust".
(End)
This illustrates how they had to modify Penniston's alleged memories in order to make sense out of the whole narrative. It might just be that the object was a drone that had been employed in the location and recovery of the black project craft elsewhere in the forest and that they used as an improvised prop in a fake UFO landing scene. It would be interesting to take a systematic look at his successive versions of the incident, at the different dates they emerged.
 
Top