A new podcast! Nice…

Alright, I've looked at the map. We've got RAF Bentwaters to the North and RAF Woodbridge to the West. Both being used by the US Air Force in 1980. I couldn't find this information but I'm just going to assume that Rendlesham Forest was a "No Fly" zone at that time. If lights and supposed craft were seen…why weren't any fighter jets scrambled? I mean men on the ground are making actual visual contact with unidentified flying objects and no bothers to get a plane or two up in the air to possibly defend the two air bases? Considering the cold war mentality, I'm unsure why this isn't a bigger issue associated with the event.

(Report comment)

Hi guys! Thanks for the new episode really interesting stuff.

Have you listened to the latest episode of The Paracast? They interviewed the co-author (the other author is actually Larry Warren) of "Left at East Gate". I've only got about 45 minutes in because its pretty intense information. I do believe that they address the inconsistency in Warren's story.

http://www.theparacast.com/

(Report comment)

I used to subscribe to the Paracast, but unsubscribed a while back. I had no idea they were doing Rendlesham. I'll have a listen.

(Report comment)

As always, great podcast guys! I agree that Larry Warren cannot be taken seriously. His story has grown and changed so much over the years that I tend to think he just likes the attention it brings to him. If you can't keep your story straight, that is a sure sign that the things you say are not quite right.
Like you said, we will never really know what happend, but from everything that I've read and learned I lean towardsd the fireball or Russian spy sat idea. Something like that would sure get them out into the woods to investigate, and once there, beliefs can feed the imagination. I think that the lights they were seeing were that of the lighthouse.

Although……it could be Joshua!

(Report comment)

Thanks for the podcast. Some good points made Logisti and Stephen, although ya should have looked up Wiki for the pulse jet powered V1.

Ah the things that go bump in the night. I guess the military guys left their night vision scopes at home that night. One would imagine one of those would have confirmed or otherwise the lighthouse theory.

(Report comment)

*L* Yeah, I looked it up afterward. I meant to pop in a little audio segment saying, "Um, yeah, in fact the V1 wasn't a balloon," but that idea got lost in the rush to get the episode out.

(Report comment)

Enjoyed the podcast. I'm all for focusing more on UFO's (although I'm becoming more convinced that they are simply unknown or experimental aircraft, or some other dull everyday explanation, from right here on earth); life on other planets (all the planets, all the galaxies, all the………space - there's got to be something/someone out there); or even bigfoot.

(Report comment)

Well, there’s some material on youtube that people can look up. What really impressed me were the interviews with Jim Penniston, on Larry King, where Penniston claims to have touched and examined the craft while taking notes. Penniston seemed very, very sincere to me. However, my interest dwindled when I found out that Penniston’s original report doesn’t even mention touching the craft and, on a web page somewhere (look it up), apparently Burroughs, who was right with Penniston, says not, and that Penniston didn’t take notes, at the time, in his “famous” little note book with drawings.

“Jim Penniston and John Burroughs went to investigate the craft together. However, there is a major inconsistency in separate interviews of Jim Penniston and John Burroughs. In an interview with Larry King on November 9, 2007, Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees". The interviews with Jim Penniston and John Burroughs have subsequently been made available on Youtube.”

So, apparently, all we can be reasonably sure of is that people saw some weird lights – and, sadly, that’s absolutely it! I would love to see an interview with Penniston and Burroughs together discussing it. These people are really messed up! I’m not sure why Penniston would lie? – but his seeming sincerity got me going for a while. Maybe he did some hypnotic regression stuff and his story is based on that?

- Dave

(Report comment)

>>Penniston seemed very, very sincere to me. However, my interest dwindled when I found out that Penniston’s original report doesn’t even mention touching the craft and, on a web page somewhere (look it up), apparently Burroughs, who was right with Penniston, says not, and that Penniston didn’t take notes, at the time, in his “famous” little note book with drawings.<<

Yep, you can see it here
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2b.htm
Wrong day, wrong time, wrong location… what a witness!

Ian

(Report comment)

>>If lights and supposed craft were seen…why weren't any fighter jets scrambled? I mean men on the ground are making actual visual contact with unidentified flying objects and no bothers to get a plane or two up in the air to possibly defend the two air bases? Considering the cold war mentality, I'm unsure why this isn't a bigger issue associated with the event.<<

Very good point. What happened was that Halt called Easter Radar a couple of times and they didn't see anything on radar so he had not real grounds for scrambling aircraft (in fact he would have had to ask the wing commander to do it).

So what did he do? Turned round and went back to base! "We left those things out there", he said.

Gives you some idea of how seriously he took it at the time.

(Report comment)

Ian…interesting. Col. Halt has apparently been busy working on a feature length film about it. I guess he takes it seriously now.

http://ufoweek.com/2009/07/col-halt-says-ufos-i-saw-were-structured-machines/

(Report comment)

Awww Cr*p:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6138528/Britains-most-celebrated-UFO-sighting-was-a-lorry-full-of-fertiliser.html

(Report comment)

Hmmm…not sure which is more full of fertilizer, the guy's story or his truck.

So let me get this straight…his truck, full of stolen fertilizer, broke down. To cover up the "crime," he set the fertilizer and his truck on fire and rolled it down a hill and then came out about it 29 years later?

I know that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but…if the truth smells like a bunch of fertilizer, looks like a bunch of fertilizer, and burns like a bunch of fertilizer…guess what it probably is…

(Report comment)

Its amazing how many of you commenting arent aware of the WHOLE story regarding Penniston and Burroughs. You think you know what you are saying and you say you can point out the inconsistencies, when all you do is take things out of context and misquote, and dont even seek out the whole story. You need to really dig around, for the whole, linear timeline of events, as they happened, and who exactly was where and when, because none of the accounts published on the internet, give the WHOLE picture as it happened, on each of the nights, and this is because of the people who write the articles and it is not the fault of the witnesses.Penniston and Burroughs were out there for hours. Neither of them were even aware of this, untill they talked to people back at the base who they were in radio contact with them, for a short time, during the event. Something happened to Burroughs while he was out there, probably Penniston too. It seems as though Burroughs may have been "incapacitated" for some of the time, during the event. None of the witnesses from the first night have a good conscious recall, of the timeline of events, while they were near the object on the ground. People love to point out how Burroughs says he never saw Penniston drawing or photographing the object, but Burroughs isnt saying that Penniston wasnt or didnt(as Burroughs is the first to point out himself by the way) then they seem to forget the part of the story where Burroughs AND Penniston point out that Burroughs role that night, was to act as radio relay, to Cabansag. This is important, in order to perform as an effective radio relay, all three men would have had to reamain spread out, and at a distance from each other, and Burroughs would have had to have been further back from Penniston, at least halfway between Penniston and Cabansag, in order to act as a radio relay, which also means that Burroughs, would not have been close enough to effectively see exactly what Penniston was doing at all times, especially if Penniston was standing in front of a very bright light source, ie, the object itself. Go and stand in front of a spotlight and have a friend stand twenty feet away from you and then ask them to tell you what you are doing while you wave your hands in the air or something. Ill bet your friend wont be able to tell you what you are doing because standing in front of an extremely bright light source like that will effectively blind them to any activity, going on, in its immediate vicinity. Its kind of like trying to look into the center of the sun while you shield your eyes from its brightness. Of course, most people arent capable of using their minds to picture conditions like that, however it is very important to do so, and if you cant, then you project your own inability to think abstractly onto the witness statement and end up taking that statement out of context, and you will then go on to misunderstand, at least half of what is said. I have studied this case for years now,ever since it happened back in the eighties, however Im not a ufo investigator, just someone interested in the subject but I do know for a fact that half of what it taken as inconsistency is not that at all, and is usually the fault of mistakes and misrepresentation, of course those people would never admit it,ego is a powerful weapon, the thing is, it backfires often, and when it does, it makes quite a mess.
There is now yet another witness who has come forward from the first night who was on base at the time of the Penniston, Burroughs incident. He was outside the facilities, but within the fence perimeter and apparently had a good view of the part of the forest where that group was and could see the area being lit up by the object. He, and a his partner that night were listening in on the conversation between Pennistons group and radio control and has mentioned that at at one point the conversation went to a more secure frequency. His statement can be read at earthrfiles I believe. Its great to see we still have people coming forward about this thing!
What NEEDS to happen is this:- All of the witnesses need to get together in one location and at the same time, and a proper timeline of events needs to be constructed. The entire linear three day period needs to documented in a narrative against the clock. There is nothing like this in existence at the moment. All that exists, are accounts from witnesses which correlate what other witnesses saw etc. There has never been one official narrative for the entire three day event. This, in itself is odd, and it is my opoinion that the powers that be have been working towards this objective, fragmentation of the entire story and witness accounts, aswell as dividing the witnesses themselves from each other. If a complete picture of what went on in the forest can be constructed then it follows that from it, it will become possible to tell what went on between the events back at the base, which is just as important, and maybe even more so, as what went on in the forest. This upcoming Bentwaters reunion could be the ideal opportunity to accomplish such a feat, I hope those involved see it the same way!

(Report comment)

How is Ridpaths Lighthouse theory "proof"???Well I suppose its all the proof some people need, of course some people believe the ufos were alien based on the fact that the Rendlesham forest incident is referenced as a ufo event in the first place.Just goes to show you there are sceptic "nuts", just as well as there are alien "nuts".Reality is subjective, its a rorchach blot, but why do people insist that ufos can not be alien where in actual fact they could well be. What is to stop another intelligence, either from the future, from another dimension, from another planet, or even all three, from coming here covertly whenever it pleases? Where is the law that says this is not possible end of??!! This podcast is totally inaccurate in its information about the Rendlesham Forest Event. The guys dont even know the case well enough to comment about it at all.Everything they have said is incorrect information. They have attributed most of their quotes to the wrong witnesses. They have said that certain evidence has been PROVEN to be one thing, when the fact remains that nothing has ever been proven in regard to these same things.Please, please, before you start talking about things authouritatively, make sure you have done your homework about the event. The guy says that there were no farm animals on the farm near the forest yet the witnesses were refering to the wildlife in the forest NOT the farmanimals that never where. By the way, Halt stands behind the account of the ufo on the ground given by the man they say was mistakewn about what he saw. The contention on this siyte and in this podcast seems to be that in order to debunk a story it is only necessary to have a preliminary idea of the story as a whole and the witnesses and their testimony. Wikipedia is it!!!Do yourself a favor and go elsewhere to find out about these subjects. Find yourself a critic who at least knows what they are talking about, and who has done the investigation on the ground!! Dont listen to a couple of morons who know shit about any of the stuff they cover on their show.

(Report comment)

Ian Ridpath has misquoted witnesses to beat the band where this case is concerned. He says above that he gave up on Penniston when he read an article "somewhere" that said the craft Penniston says he encountered, was not in his official report on the incident when he wrote it up later. Well, Penniston has said that he toned down the original report because of his anxiety about how it would look to his superior officers and on his record. You Mr Ridpath are one sorry excuse for an investigator. Ive read your work and you just dont cut it as far as investigative work goes. You have misquoted and misrepresented witnesses and evidence all over the place in regards to the Rendlesham Forest Incident.You are maintain that he added the bit about the craft, later, in order to make it sound more like a "ufo" story! That Lighthouse crap really caught on too, eh??

(Report comment)

Dear Mr. Appleseed:

Thanks very much for your comments. Honestly, I've been neglecting the podcast recently and was even considering abandoning it. Seeing that it can stir such passion as reflected in your comments, though, has made me reconsider! If you do continue to listen to future episodes, do know that you are somewhat responsible for their existence.

Again, I thank you.

(Report comment)