Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

General discussion about the Rendlesham forest incident

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby IanR » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:28 am

Admin wrote:As far as I remember, Armold came out afterwards to see the landing site. Whatever it was that Cabansag, Burroughs and Penniston had seen, it was gone.

But how do you know? No one saw it leave. Had it taken off upwards, as is sometimes claimed, Chandler at the edge of the forest would have seen it, as well as others who were outside listening in to the radio, such as Bertolino.

In fact, the lights hadn't gone when Armold went out. As he said back in 1997: "We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were." Sounds to me like the lights never went away at all, particularly since they were seen on subsequent nights as well.

Note that on none of the nights was anything seen to leave. Only on the first night was something apparently to descend, and we know that that coincided with the 3 am fireball. There is no evidence that anything came down in the forest at all.

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby IanR » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:37 am

Admin wrote:Buran's statements are important IMO. He was not in the forest, but he was in radio contact with the witnesses. However, the claims he now makes disagree with his initial witness statement of Penniston reporting a definite object. Who's changing their stories now?

Well, might I suggest that's simply a poor choice of words by Buran and a lesson to us all to think carefully about how what we say can be (mis)interpreted.

Yes, Penniston did say he thought there was an object in the forest the first night (he's the only one who did so), but every time he radioed in that he was close, whatever it was magically moved. So there was no object. As Buran has said on Facebook: "I was worried that a small aircraft may have crashed in Rendlesham. This was the ONLY reason I sent USAF SPs to what was thought to be the scene. When nothing was found, I had them come back and write statements. Those are reproduced everywhere, as you know. I considered the matter closed."

Ian
IanR
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Admin » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:53 am

Fair points, Ian. I hope for some input from Buran.
Website owner | Contact me: PMEmail |
Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby puddlepirate » Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:03 pm

Take a step back from the RFI and what you see is a story that has evolved from the statements of only two of the three SP personnel who went into the forest after seeing odd lights from the east gate at Woodbridge on night one. From a tiny acorn a huge mythological oak has grown.

LW's claims are built around night two, as is Halt's memo. What appears to have happened is the events of night two have been interwoven with the claims of what was seen on night one. It is not my intention to open another can of worms but LW's statements have been the subject of controversy whereas Halt has only ever said he saw lights - many different types of lights and some which displayed unusual characteristics but lights all the same. In LAEG LW mentions his passport being taken away yet when compared to JP and JB's claims for night one, LW's claims are not much different. So why then, was LW's passport taken away yet no action was taken against JP or JB? Neither Armold (apologies for the previous incorrect spelling) nor Buran show much antagonism towards LW but are virtually spitting blood when it comes to JB and JP. Why is that? Given LW co authored a book about the incident I would have thought he'd be in the pillory alongside his colleagues.

I started a thread to try to obtain more information about night two and in particular to seek confirmation of the numbers of personnel who went off base that night, why they went off base and what they found. There were allegations of 'it's back', fleet of vehicles, lightalls, guys in civvy clothes, guys in lab coats, C-5 arriving, radar film, etc etc so night two seems to have much more to offer when it comes to an investigation but always the story is steered back to night one. Why?
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
puddlepirate
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
Location: UK

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Ignis Fatuus » Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:22 pm

but are virtually spitting blood when it comes to JB and JP. Why is that?

I would think because of the way they use the integrity of the 81st to perpertrate a scam is deeply offensive to Armold.
I started a thread to try to obtain more information about night two and in particular to seek confirmation of the numbers of personnel who went off base that night, why they went off base and what they found. There were allegations of 'it's back', fleet of vehicles, lightalls, guys in civvy clothes, guys in lab coats, C-5 arriving, radar film, etc etc so night two seems to have much more to offer when it comes to an investigation but always the story is steered back to night one. Why?

Because Halt has no credibility.
I've got so much torque I can tear a hole in Time - Jeremy Clarkson
User avatar
Ignis Fatuus
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:52 am
Location: Orfordness Lighthouse

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:35 pm

Stephan, Ted Conrad tells us that Halt went out two nights and Chris Armold also stated that he went out with Halt the night of 26/27. So we have two independant witnesses for that fact.

Halt might have never mentioned it simply because nothing of interest happened. Except of course for the stars, planets, masts, and lighthouse that were in the sky. So why did he suddenly think they were fast moving UFO's shining down beams of light the next night? Strange ...

From Ted Conrad's interview on Clarke's weblog:

26/27:
"Sometime between 2100 and 2200 on [26 December 1980] members of the Woodbridge SP shift appeared at a Christmas party at the O’Club where Lt Col Halt and myself were in attendance. They reported the events of the previous night and thinking there might be a recurrence, Halt decided to ride along with the shift leader, which he did. Aside from that, nothing unusual happened."

27/28:
"By the morning of [27 December 1980] I contacted Maj Zickler for information of the alleged sighting. His information was all second hand and sketchy. Those with first hand accounts were citing career concerns as justification for remaining silent. (...) We decided that a brief in-house investigation was in order. (...) The rest of [27 December 1980] saw Lt Col Halt assemble our meagre assets. These were a Geiger counter, starlight scope (night vision device) and trained SP investigators out at the site in Rendlesham Forest. The investigation lasted until late evening where the site was starlight scoped, after which all went home except Lt Col Halt and some unknown SP’s. This was the night of Halt’s famous audiotape. He also had a two-way communication radio, which allowed me, and the SP’s to monitor his reports."

"Just to reiterate, if Penniston's encounter on day 1 was at approximately 0300 hrs. the notification at the party was 18 hours later at approx. 9:00 PM, also on day 1. Penniston's interview occurred the morning of day 2, and shortly there after we decided to investigate. Halt spent most of that day with the investigators, the starlight scope and Geiger counter. After sundown he went back to the forest with his tape recorder, and reported seeing lights that night. This was actually early morning of day 3 and approximately 48 hours after Penniston's encounter. Take your pick for day 1,either 0300 26 Dec. or 27 Dec."

Halt always told that his night started unexpected at the Christmas party, with the announcement that 'it was back'. Nevels, however, told that the third night actually started with a top secret investigation. Now Conrad confirms Nevels' story. Either Halt mixed the two up, or he deliberately kept the fact that a top secret investigation was ordered out of the public domain.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:04 pm

IanR wrote:In fact, the lights hadn't gone when Armold went out. As he said back in 1997: "We could see lights in the distance and it appeared unusual as it was a sweeping light, (we did not know about the lighthouse on the coast at the time). We also saw some strange colored lights in the distance but were unable to determine what they were." Sounds to me like the lights never went away at all, particularly since they were seen on subsequent nights as well.


Yes, strange that the lights were still there when Armold arrived yet nobody was looking for the object anymore, even Burroughs went out looking for traces of the encounter, not for the object.

Almost seems as if .. there was something else there that particular night. Something that actually moved. And that kept moving away which is the reason Jim kept giving an extended location until they got passed the location where they last saw it.

Could that be possible, or is that possibility still not open to discussion for you Ian?


Penniston: When we got within a 50 meter distance, the object was producing red and blue light. The blue light was steady and projecting under the object. It was up the area directly extending a meter or two out. At this point of positive identification I relayed to CSC, SSgt Coffey. A positing sighting of the object...1....Colour of lights and that it was definitely mechanical in nature. It moved in a zig-zagging manner back through the woods. We proceeded after it then lost sight of it.

Burroughs: All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving back towards the open field. After a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field.

Buran: They appeared to get very close to the lights, and at one point SSgt Penniston stated that it was a definite mechanical object.

Chandler: On one occasion Penniston relayed that he was close enough to the object to determine it was definitely a mechanical object. He stated that he was within 50 meters.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Frank » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:18 pm

Ignis Fatuus wrote:Because Halt has no credibility.


Ignis, you keep asking for evidence. Where is the evidence for what you state here? Please think twice before attacking the people instead of the data.

Considering the evidence for the third night: Why don't you listen to the facts that are on Halt's tape? It contains undeniable evidence for a UFO, i.e., an Unidentified Flying Object, witnessed by several men that worked at a military airbase on a daily basis. At least one of these men had been out in the forest the night before, and studied the skies for several hours. And yet, none of these men could identify what these objects were. These are hard facts, not opinions. Case closed.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby puddlepirate » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:25 pm

I would think because of the way they use the integrity of the 81st to perpertrate a scam is deeply offensive to Armold.
Stephan = You've selectedly quoted what I said. My point was given that others have accused LW making things up (or words to that effect) then why haven't Buran and Armold not shown the same animosity towards LW as they have towards JP and JB? Buran says he was on three days off after night one so wasn't around. But what about Armold? He didn't go out on night one but is still angry - but apparently not as angry with LW. That intrugues me. Could it be because LAEG is built around night two and is actually true (but perhaps with an exaggeration of some parts simply to spark controversy and make the book more saleable). It seems there WAS a classified investigation on night two and LAEG describes an investigation - then LW finds himself in deep crap for exposing it. The following statement isn't evidence of an investigation but it points towards something else going on:

From Frank:
Ted Conrad tells us that Halt went out two nights and Chris Armold also stated that he went out with Halt the night of 26/27. So we have two independant witnesses for that fact.


So if there was an investigation on night two, why is the focus of attention always on night one?
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
puddlepirate
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
Location: UK

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby John Burroughs » Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:52 pm

Problem with that is you need to look at all of Armolds 97 statement. He didnot go out with Halt he went out with me! There was 3 of us who went out together off duty not on we showed up when Halt was allready out in the forrest its on the Halt tape. We have airmen Burroughs and 2 other personal at our location who would like to join up. Ball says not now we will tell them when they can join us. I may not have that word for word but thats how it went down. Also Armold says he went out with us in his 97 statement on the first night he didnot he came over and met up with us after we came back in. He even says he didnot get ahold of the British police but according to there logs he did. Ian why won't you post the exchange I had with Conde last night? Its because he crashed and burned. Again have them come on and face the music Like Admin said its kinda strange they all came on at once! And if they all come on here nobody can say what they have to say is being controlled! The only person doing that is Ian who picks and choose the statements he post!!! Ask them to face the music on all of the statements they have made over the years!!! I'm waiting !
Last edited by John Burroughs on Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Burroughs
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Daniel » Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:03 pm

Would have been great if Conde has popped on this board also. I would like to know if he mentioned his 'prank' to anyone prior to speaking to James Easton?
Daniel
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby stephan » Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:09 pm

John Burroughs wrote:Problem with that is you need to look at all of Armolds 97 statement. He didnot go out with Halt he went out with me! There was 3 of us who went out together off duty not on we showed up when Halt was allready out in the forrest its on the Halt tape. We have airmen Burroughs and 2 other personal at our location who would like to join up. Ball says not now we will tell them when they can join us. I may not have that word for word but thats how it went down.


thanks for clarifying that, John. So Armold was out there on Halt's night together with you and who was the 3rd person ? Armold calls him Adrian Bustamante, is that Adrian Bustinza perhaps ? Any idea why you were not allowed to join Halt's team ?
send me a signal
User avatar
stephan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Ignis Fatuus » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:17 am

Frank
Ignis, you keep asking for evidence. Where is the evidence for what you state here? Please think twice before attacking the people instead of the data.

Just twice? This isn't my first Rodeo Frank. You get very close at times to establishing a new neural pathway to reach that ah-ha moment but fall at the last hurdle. Can you work out what that last hurdle is?
I've got so much torque I can tear a hole in Time - Jeremy Clarkson
User avatar
Ignis Fatuus
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:52 am
Location: Orfordness Lighthouse

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby larry warren » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:47 am

puddle, ive told you sir that i wove NOTHIhNG in our book! My pass port WAS suspended due to reasons explained in the book !
Ramsey Clark, the former US attorney general of the US, helped me get it back, and its suspention was ONLY connected to RENDLESHAM ! A majority of you are nothing less than PASSIVE / AGRESSIVE DEBUNKERS ! IGNIS , your just a BOZO in NZ Someday you can meet my CLUB dude and run it ! I knew Armould, and the rest, and as you would likly expect from me, Those boys are bought and paid for ! i dont give a damn what they think about me or the others, as it is clearly THAY, that so desire 15 minutes of fame! thirty years an all ! come christmas im sending you REGULARS, your deploma from CHICKEN SHIT HIGH !
T R A N S P A R E N T ! you are! Cheers light house fans !
PS Chris, you still got that brown strat ? worth somthing now dude !
larry warren
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:02 pm
Location: england

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby Ignis Fatuus » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:35 am

Hi Larry, Glad to hear you're ok. How was Florence?
The Bozo from NZ :D
I've got so much torque I can tear a hole in Time - Jeremy Clarkson
User avatar
Ignis Fatuus
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:52 am
Location: Orfordness Lighthouse

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby larry warren » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:04 pm

Damn , as much as i want to get mad at Ignis, i cant cause he does make me laugh! NZ folks do have a great sense of humor!
ok, Chris never went out with Bustinza, because i road out to the forrest with Busty, Englund and Two others! John Was Out there off duty in the parking area ( clearing) Is chris saying he was with halts Team ? taking pictures ? that cant be!
Chris and i had alot more in common than perhaps i did with JP and JB, guitar players, RnR ect trying to grow our hair as long as we could and hid it under our brets and all that! I was DELTA FLT, chris was LE on a diffrent shift? he never said a thing
about this, and I never saw him in the woods ,im did not know alot of the others on my night at that time, but i KNEW chris !
and would have identifyed him as a wittiness years ago, Chris, what gives , Dude? if you were out , then how could you have missed what went down? really ol friend give it some thought, did someone get to you? ill stand with ya pal if that happened to you! somthings wrong here. and thats Crazy larry saying it now !! the events DID happen folks.
larry warren
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:02 pm
Location: england

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby John Burroughs » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:29 pm

So many threads it takes me forever to read everthing that's been posted. Stephen lets see it was in front of us and moved back how did it get out into the open field lets see the person drove it back through those trees the same trees that we had to walk through H mm. Larry Chris was with me and one other person who he did'nt even come close to getting the name right. We were in the back in the stageing area until Halt team allowed us to meet up with them towards the end. Thats why I asked you if you witnessed what happened to Adrian and I when we moved forword after I met up with Halt! I noticed how everybody seems to have a phobia with the word UFO it seems everybody wants to tie in UFO with ailiens. I never said there was ailiens out there did I. Larry why don't you jump in and restate how the ailien thing got started. Its interesting when the story first broke CNN did a piece on it. Chuck DeCaro was able to get several people to talk about it. There was a Officer on it who stated he was involved in tranporting evidence to a waiting plane. There were NCO talking about what happened to including one who was out in the field as the incident took place saying he may have seen somthing inside the light's that were flying around. The people who were interviewed didnot say we were confused or misidentified somthing. The whole incident blew up when the Halt Memo and tape was released the same tape Ian and others now saying is a fake. No memo no tape no incident Jim Chuck and I were not on the CNN piece but numerous other people were who stated somthing happened. After the Memo tape and Cnn piece came out the 3 of us were hunted down like dogs. We were accused of working for the government and being involved in a cover up. From the beggining I stated I had a real problem with what Larry had to say about ailiens being involved. But if you look at the Cnn piece you will see somebody else does talk about the fact there could have been some other kind of life form in the blue or white light that was flying around. That person was a MSgt by the name of Ball who was the Security flight chief. Thats why I have asked Larry if he saw what happened to Adrian and I! As far as being a Con man if telling you what I saw and what happened is being a con man then what can I say. I was out there I know for a fact what I saw was not the light house or a patrol car. Ian I ask again if your so sure your right why won't you show up on he 28th of December and show everybody. I just read somebody even offered to provide protection for you. All you did was come back with Jim and I will get lost and not be able to find the right spot. And then I beleive you called the people who would show up a certain name. I now see Puddle your even hedgeing on coming out and meeting up with us. Lets see were willing to go out into the woods and show anybody who would like to show up what we had to deal with. We have invited Ian to show up and show everybody what he has been talking about in front of anybody who choose's to show up. Were also willing to also do a speaking engagement that all profits go to charity. And last but not least anybody to include Lt Buren Chris Armold and even Kevin Conde can show up that night and show us how we were mistaken or confused. There is no Con job going on and were not conducting a witch hunt or hiding behind our computers. I know none of the people who claim that nothing happened have to prove anything just take pot shots at us. They don't have to back up anything they said. Jim Chuck and I plus everybody else are liars con men and even the tape was made up. Linda puts out a piece of my hypnois for people to look at and the witch hunt begins. Right now I'm waiting to see if Skip will answer some of my questions he overlooked the one about the radar contact I will really be interested in. Ian why don't you and your friends pool your money together and bring Buren over for the 28th. And I also noticed Buren did not want to talk about what the other Officers said or ven Halt!
John Burroughs
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby larry warren » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:59 pm

John, damn this is heavy ! i saw you, and later heard that you ran to the object or thing , weird i dident know chris was with you ? its my beleife that i left the area ( forrest) before you had your second event, BUT it is familier to me what happened to you, and i cant explain why, nor am i adding this for effect !
chris was a bit diffrent after that time frame as well. John i will come back later on your above post ! i think i can help out .
Chris, did we ever talk about what happened in the woods ? you lived accross from me and down the hall, i know you called the cops, but did you ever here me talk about any of this at that time? please help
larry warren
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:02 pm
Location: england

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby John Burroughs » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:14 pm

Larry
Chris was with me until we met up with Halt and the rest of his party. He was not with Adrian and I when we moved foreword!
John Burroughs
 
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:16 pm

Re: Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

Postby puddlepirate » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:05 pm

Larry

My pass port WAS suspended due to reasons explained in the book !
Ramsey Clark, the former US attorney general of the US, helped me get it back, and its suspention was ONLY connected to RENDLESHAM


You've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. What I meant was YOU had your passport confiscated and found yourself in a heap of trouble yet JB and JP, who have said much the same as you have not had anything like that done to them. My question is why not? What is the difference between what you said and what they have said. I can only assume the answer must lie in the difference between what was going on on the first night and that which was going on on the second, i.e. your night. For you to have had that done to you but with no action taken against JB or JP, suggests what you witnessed was far more serious than what they witnessed - and therefore, other than they occurred in almost the same location, the incidents are not linked.

As for LAEG, my comment was more a generic comment about authors, publishers and books in general. It was not intended to imply that you were deceiving anyone. Far from it. I regard LAEG as probably the most reliable source of info re night two (and to cheer you up, I bought a copy some time ago. Not the later reprint but the first one). At least your story has remained totally consistent and to my knowledge at least, has not changed over time. What was said then remains true today.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
puddlepirate
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to The Rendlesham forest incident

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest