https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/346192/could-this-be-the-rendlesham-forest-ufoA 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.
Welcome aboardHi 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
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.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!
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.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.
My page on Conde's hoax is here: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.
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.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.
I know we were both parties to email discussions with Kevin.Although Conde's hoax was not part of the main Rendlesham case...
... 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.
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. ...
Alternatively... why have I just come across archive material which slightly contradicts this."There was no flying at the twin bases over the Christmas period...".
It would appear that is the case - see my post #343.
... 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. ...
From the following, apparently.Where did I get that reference to Halt and the helicopters from?
A contrast enhanced version shows that there is something else in this image- perhaps the cab of a JCB, and part of the bucket?
Goodness sakes, looks like I actually suggested this to John Burroughs at the time, writing: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.
"Triangular", tho?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 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...It would be a massive shame to see the thread knocked off course by a long meta-discussion.
A contrast enhanced version shows that there is something else in this image- perhaps the cab of a JCB, and part of the bucket?
View attachment 38317
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.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.
... "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'. ...
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.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???
We will do our best to ensure this doesn't happen.It would be a massive shame to see the thread knocked off course by a long meta-discussion.
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.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
If I were responsible, I would apologise for its paucity!Is that all it said?