• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
i was working with David Boast in 2000 in a field near his home near Woodbridge base backgate . Suddenly from over the treeline came a loud KERRRANG metallic noise and soon after a wupwup wup this was then obviously a helicopter taking off.The base at Woodbridge had been closed since 93 and was generally silent i spose the loud metallic noise was running up engine/engaging gears??? a godawful noise . He turned to me and said "for a minute i thought theyd come back,i was there on the night of the ufo did you know that? " he then turned away and nothing more was said about it. I wouldnt say i got to know him very well met him a dozen times or so that year and never since seen him but he seemed an ordinary joe -told me a few tales about local pheasant shoots,i stumbled onto 3 or 4 spaniels that he kept in a type of hidden lair/coop in the forest few hundred yds from his home these werent pet dogs they were working dogs,silently looked at me, looked ok
Fascinating, thanks. Did any of the other witnesses report any such loud noises from the object back in 1980?
 
the whole Rendlesham Forrest incident is almost exact the same story of the UFO of Soesterberg Airbase. ( The Netherlands ).
On the 3rd of February 1979 in the early morning a group of 12 militairy police saw a triangle object hovering at the airbase. Their accounts and reports were almost the same of their British partners years later.


A new thread has been established for discussion of the Soesterberg sighting:

Soesterberg Airbase Sighting (Netherlands; 1979)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/soesterberg-airbase-sighting-netherlands-1979.69829/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the whole Rendlesham Forrest incident is almost exact the same story of the UFO of Soesterberg Airbase. ( The Netherlands ).
On the 3rd of February 1979 in the early morning a group of 12 militairy police saw a triangle object hovering at the airbase. Their accounts and reports were almost the same of their British partners years later.


A new thread has been established for discussion of the Soesterberg sighting:

Soesterberg Airbase Sighting (Netherlands; 1979)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/soesterberg-airbase-sighting-netherlands-1979.69829/
Thank you for posting this and starting a fascinating new thread.

Just to say Rendlesham was in December 1980, so only 20 months later and not 'years'.
 
I'm not aware if anyone has posted this before, it's from May of 2021, The Sun. Apparently a poacher was also in those woods and took some photos. You have probably all seen this?

CLOSER ENCOUNTER

First ever ‘photos of Britain’s biggest UFO sighting show huge orb flying through woods with beam of light shooting out’​

THESE spooky black and white photos allegedly show the UFO at the centre of Britain's biggest ever case for the first time.

They were supposedly taken in Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk by a poacher who claims he saw the same UFO being hunted by a military team from a nearby US airbase.

1671747282436.png

1671747300471.png

1671747325088.png


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14838941/first-photos-britains-biggest-ufo-sighting-orb-woods/
 
These look like poor fakes. The lighting is all wrong. See how the tree is illuminated from the front, despite having the 'beam' behind it.
index.php
Just rather interesting that there were 3 photos, and we really don't know what was in front of the trees.
Odd that it took so many years for these photos to appear?
 
But more tits. Actually I’m not sure about the current tit situation as regards the currant bun. I'm sure others will be able to fill us in..
Sorry, I am unaware of 'The Sun' newspaper, but you're right about the current situation! :)
 
It is claimed that the Rendlesham UFO has reached the same status as the legendary King Arthur.

The Suffolk Police and the MoD claimed they found nothing unusual when they investigated despite the signed Halt affidavit that claimed it was extraterrestrial.

So many crazy explanations over the years including the Americans were practicing on how to free the American hostages in Iran.

We will never know !
 
I'm not aware if anyone has posted this before, it's from May of 2021, The Sun. Apparently a poacher was also in those woods and took some photos. You have probably all seen this?

CLOSER ENCOUNTER

First ever ‘photos of Britain’s biggest UFO sighting show huge orb flying through woods with beam of light shooting out’​

THESE spooky black and white photos allegedly show the UFO at the centre of Britain's biggest ever case for the first time.

They were supposedly taken in Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk by a poacher who claims he saw the same UFO being hunted by a military team from a nearby US airbase.

View attachment 61804
View attachment 61805
View attachment 61806

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14838941/first-photos-britains-biggest-ufo-sighting-orb-woods/
Yes so many light sources you would think it was a faked moon landing photo.:)

One and three look like a light source in front of the trees and perhaps a mirror or CD hung in the trees reflecting it (or another, weaker torch) Or could it be the fabled lighthouse? Could be auto flash going off when he/she was photographing the light?

Two is more interesting although the light is catching the tree trunks and not the leaves, it looks as if the light in the beam is brighter than the one in the sky.

Why was a poacher carrying a camera? We are before smartphones and it seems odd equipment for a poacher.
 
Yes so many light sources you would think it was a faked moon landing photo.:)

One and three look like a light source in front of the trees and perhaps a mirror or CD hung in the trees reflecting it (or another, weaker torch) Or could it be the fabled lighthouse? Could be auto flash going off when he/she was photographing the light?

Two is more interesting although the light is catching the tree trunks and not the leaves, it looks as if the light in the beam is brighter than the one in the sky.

Why was a poacher carrying a camera? We are before smartphones and it seems odd equipment for a poacher.
Agreed, these look faked. It may be part of an effort to keep attention on the ETH or an amateur effort. The pro ET disinformation around this case was so extreme and verged on the absurd. I still think the original event was a black project gone wrong and they had to cover it up -- might have been either an attempt to retrieve the Soviet satellite or something to do with the Middle East, we shall never know. The cover up seems to have been over the top and disorganised, multiple alleged landings and aliens, so many people supposedly sworn to secrecy and then blabbing to numerous folk, etc. The people whom I feel very sorry for were Halt, set up by his own commander and now left to pick up the pieces, and of course Burroughs, Penniston, and the rest.
 
I've heard this in connection with the Cash-Landrum incident, but not the Rendlesham incident. But the Iran incident was still ongoing at this particular time, so it is not impossible.

The Iran-related theory that has been put about was that the event was either cover for a spy satellite film drop, or was a mishandled film drop, though I think in this case there are far simpler explanations.
 
Agreed, these look faked. It may be part of an effort to keep attention on the ETH or an amateur effort. The pro ET disinformation around this case was so extreme and verged on the absurd. I still think the original event was a black project gone wrong and they had to cover it up -- might have been either an attempt to retrieve the Soviet satellite or something to do with the Middle East, we shall never know. The cover up seems to have been over the top and disorganised, multiple alleged landings and aliens, so many people supposedly sworn to secrecy and then blabbing to numerous folk, etc. The people whom I feel very sorry for were Halt, set up by his own commander and now left to pick up the pieces, and of course Burroughs, Penniston, and the rest.
I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss everything said by all those men.
 
It's a shame the photos were not made public when the Rendlesham Forest incident first happened, because they could have been investigated to see if they were actually taken at that spot, for a start.
Too many years have gone by now, the trees and growth have changed.
 
I think it's a mistake to simply dismiss everything said by all those men.
The problem is that none of the alleged alien stories matches any of the others. In addition I think there are two or three points that need emphasizing. One is Halt's comment that a large transport plane landed and a lot of people got out, but he had no idea who or what they were. The second is the question of the light-alls. Bearing in mind the importance of Rendlesham at that time of the Cold War and the fact that they held nuclear weapons this would have been one of the most efficient and best run USAF bases in the world. But when Halt and his team were going to go into the woods none of the light-alls were said to be working. None of them? That 's allegedly why they were issued the night vision devices instead. I had bought into Halt's story completely before seeing the evidence about how deceptive they could be. If all the bizarre events were being viewed through distorting night vision optics that puts a big question mark against them. If drones with lights and lasers were being flown around they could therefore have put on a very convincing display. The third point is the sheer number of alleged claims of alien craft being made by many different people. Many witnesses claimed that USAF personnel told them straight up that alien craft had crashed or landed there. If there had been such objects all witnesses would have been silenced immediately, they wouldn't have been allowed to wander around telling others about it. The obvious answer is that they had been told to spread the stories by the specialised accident retrieval team that Halt saw arrive on the big transport plane. And some were definitely given the mind control treatment and convinced that they had seen aliens or space ships. They were all honest and reliable people but they were mind controlled and manipulated by experts in their field.

I also think that the reason that this case got such attention is the tendency for everyone, researchers and others, to regard alleged sightings by military people as necessarily more important or significant than those by "ordinary" people. When the military is involved all kinds of other factors may be at work, and I think this case demonstrates that.
 
I believe in those photos the same day I do of a poacher with a camera.

(And think how much money they could have made if they had gone to the media at the time...)

I did say somewhere up thread, I once met a witness.

They were convinced they saw something unearthly.

But it could be mind control.
 
No-one else reported a 'large transport plane', so I think that is a later confabulation. Surely they would have talked to Halt, one of the major witnesses. How did they expect to control Halt's mind without even talking to him?

Mind control was a paranoid fantasy concocted in the 1950s and 60s, and by the 1980s it was more or less known to be ineffective. Today we know it to be a myth, at least using current technology. The results are far too random and uncontrollable for mind control to be useful.

Maybe at some part in the relatively distant future we will be able to influence mental processing effectively, but before that time we will need to develop a robust and mature form of neurotechnology which does not exist today, and certainly did not exist forty-two years ago. We are still operating in the dark concerning the workings of the human mind; it is like trying to control a laptop with the keyboard and mouse-pad disabled and we don't know anything about the operating system.

In short, no-one had their minds altered by human agency in this incident. I suspect that no-one had their minds altered by alien agency either, but that is more in the realms of the unknowable.
 
Last edited:
No-one else reported a 'large transport plane', so I think that is a later confabulation. Surely they would have talked to Halt, one of the major witnesses. How did they expect to control Halt's mind without even talking to him?

Mind control was a paranoid fantasy concocted in the 1950s and 60s, and by the 1980s it was more or less known to be ineffective. Today we know it to be a myth, at least using current technology. The results are far too random and uncontrollable for mind control to be useful.

Maybe at some part in the relatively distant future we will be able to influence mental processing effectively, but before that time we will need to develop a robust and mature form of neurotechnology which does not exist today, and certainly did not exist forty-two years ago. We are still operating in the dark concerning the workings of the human mind; it is like trying to control a laptop with the keyboard and mouse-pad disabled and we don't know anything about the operating system.

In short, no-one had their minds altered by human agency in this incident. I suspect that no-one had their minds altered by alien agency either, but that is more in the realms of the unknowable.
With respect, there is little doubt that mind control is, sadly, far more than a myth. And its employment in the UFO arena has been going on a long time. Several years ago I wrote an article detailing the likely use of mind control in several famous UFO cases (although I made only a passing reference to Rendlesham).

https://www.academia.edu/24993814/UFOS_MIND_CONTROL_AND_DISINFORMATION_WHAT_CAN_IT_ALL_MEAN

Many people were taken in by the naive and ineffective congressional investigation into the death of one of the early victims of Project MKUltra. Although it was clear that a massive amount of research into narcohypnotic methods of mind control had taken place, the project papers had allegedly all been destroyed and nobody who had taken part in the research could apparently remember what was in them! Early on they had figured out how to implant fake personalities into their subjects and had tested the results with positive outcomes. Over 80 universities had been recruited to run experiments for them. But the CIA head was allowed to make an opening statement referring to foolish and laughable methods being tried out, giving the impression of hopeless incompetence (a very old ploy used in disinformation) and a waste of public funds rather than a genuine effort. Most critically he opened by saying that one of the project staff who had been a victim of these experiments had committed suicide by jumping to his death from a hotel room, although it has now become clear that Dr Olsen, the victim, had been murdered by a CIA operative (now legally accepted but too late to prosecute). With the agenda fixed from the start the hearings had no chance of finding out what was really going on. And since then a lot has been going on in the mind control field. Microwaves and even signals sent via the victim's own computer. Maybe more significantly, there are signs that there has been research into telepathic mind control (something previously only tried by Soviet researchers, notably Vasiliev) and a cross fertilisation of ideas between "paranormal" and conventional approaches.
 
I'm pretty sure that various governments have exploited belief in UFOs to cover other, more earthly activities - or even as a subtle way of undermining their enemies - but I don't know about anything like 'mind control'. Misinformation, possibly.
 
With respect, there is little doubt that mind control is, sadly, far more than a myth.
I am aware of the MKUltra fiasco, and I'm afraid that nothing there indicates that any significant degree of actual 'control' was achieved. There is a distinct difference between 'obtaining control over a person's mind to attain certain stated goals' and 'fucking someone's mind up so badly that they become a paranoid murderer living in a hut'.

These methods do not work in any coherent fashion, and if they did we would not be in the terrible state we are today.

I do sometimes wonder about the bizarre bullshit that certain Rendlesham witnesses have recounted as truth; could they have been the subject of a failed attempt at mind control? I doubt it very much - never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by delusion. But since the theory and practice of mind control is so utterly incompetent, I suppose there may be an outside chance someone has been trying to influence the witnesses.
 
These look like poor fakes. The lighting is all wrong. See how the tree is illuminated from the front, despite having the 'beam' behind it. ...

The first and third images (ground level; looking outward in a forest) are not compelling. As already noted, the illumination seems to be coming from more than one source. For these scenes to have been authentic on the 28th, the alleged poacher's location should have been lit up brightly and clearly visible to the military personnel claimed to have been no more than 200 yards away.

In fact, I'm unable to convince myself they're photographs at all. The lines and textures are strongly suggestive of an adept charcoal sketch rather than a photographic image. It's certainly true that a photograph could be tweaked in an image processing app so as to achieve these effects (contrast; charcoal textures), but that would require PhotoShop-style manipulations that weren't available in December 1980.

There's also the issue of whether these are the original images. If they were subject to stylistic manipulation, they would have to have been in digital form. As of December 1980 the only digital cameras were bulky special-use devices used for military or scientific purposes. Any civilian poacher taking photos in the forest on 28 December 1980 would have been using film.

This, of course, begs the question of why a poacher would be carrying a camera at all.
 
I believe in those photos the same day I do of a poacher with a camera.

(And think how much money they could have made if they had gone to the media at the time...)

I did say somewhere up thread, I once met a witness.

They were convinced they saw something unearthly.

But it could be mind control.
Can you give more details?
 
The first and third images (ground level; looking outward in a forest) are not compelling. As already noted, the illumination seems to be coming from more than one source. For these scenes to have been authentic on the 28th, the alleged poacher's location should have been lit up brightly and clearly visible to the military personnel claimed to have been no more than 200 yards away.

In fact, I'm unable to convince myself they're photographs at all. The lines and textures are strongly suggestive of an adept charcoal sketch rather than a photographic image. It's certainly true that a photograph could be tweaked in an image processing app so as to achieve these effects (contrast; charcoal textures), but that would require PhotoShop-style manipulations that weren't available in December 1980.

There's also the issue of whether these are the original images. If they were subject to stylistic manipulation, they would have to have been in digital form. As of December 1980 the only digital cameras were bulky special-use devices used for military or scientific purposes. Any civilian poacher taking photos in the forest on 28 December 1980 would have been using film.

This, of course, begs the question of why a poacher would be carrying a camera at all.
I had a look at the original post and the alledged testimony of the poacher. To my mind it was written by an American and not someone local to the area, for example he compares the size of the object to a ‘basketball’ and uses the phrase “bend your bones”.

Also, as far as I am aware these woods were not stocked with game birds for a shoot but rather provided sanctuary for bird species such as the night jar . Therefore, these conifer woods would have provided slim pickings for a poacher and hardly worth being out there on a cold December night.

More fakery in my opinion
 
Last edited:
I am aware of the MKUltra fiasco, and I'm afraid that nothing there indicates that any significant degree of actual 'control' was achieved. There is a distinct difference between 'obtaining control over a person's mind to attain certain stated goals' and 'fucking someone's mind up so badly that they become a paranoid murderer living in a hut'.

These methods do not work in any coherent fashion, and if they did we would not be in the terrible state we are today.

I do sometimes wonder about the bizarre bullshit that certain Rendlesham witnesses have recounted as truth; could they have been the subject of a failed attempt at mind control? I doubt it very much - never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by delusion. But since the theory and practice of mind control is so utterly incompetent, I suppose there may be an outside chance someone has been trying to influence the witnesses.
Ignore the evidence if you prefer. It's not a pleasant situation, but I have studied it for some years and as you haven't, I don't take your response too seriously.
 
I am not ignoring the evidence. All the evidence points towards a complete failure to control anyone's mind. Human neuroscience is simply not advanced enough for that. It is like trying to assemble a billion-piece jigsaw puzzle under a tarpaulin. Some, or many, victims of mind control programs have been affected and damaged by them, some badly, some very badly; but absolutely none have been successfully controlled. Damage is not control.

Or do you disagree with that? Where are the examples of people who have been controlled in a precise fashion rather than just destabilised and disturbed?
 
Back
Top