Post your questions for Jim Penniston.

[IanR]

Good work, ST.

Yes, I have two immediate questions:

1. Why does your notebook give the date and time of the encounter as 12.20 am on 27 December when all other evidence is that the encounter occurred on 26 December between 3 and 4 am.

2. What is the basis for your statement at the National Press Club that “over 80 Air Force Personnel... witnessed the takeoff.”

Thanks.

Ian

[Frank]

Fantastic job Silvertop!

Jim, thanks for this great opportunity!

Ian's questions are indeed very relevant.

I have a few additional ones:

1. Why is there such difference between your report of what happened that night and that of John Burroughs? Could it be that the two (or three) of you first had a brief encounter with the craft (like the one John describes), after which you had your close encounter while you were separated from the other two men?

2. In the SciFi documentary on the Rendlesham Incident, you and Col. Halt discovered that you were talking about different landing sites. Was the landing site that Col. Halt identified the same as the site with indentation marks that John Burroughs discovered during the first night, or was it a different one that was not related to the events of the first night?

3. Can the strange feeling you got while approaching the craft be compared to walking on a sloped surface or to walking while attached to an elastic cord, as if the direction or force of gravity was different?

4. Could the bright light that emanated from the craft (especially at take-off) be compared to a plasma (like a welding arc)?

Thanks!

[jpenniston]

Yes, I have two immediate questions:

1. Why does your notebook give the date and time of the encounter as 12.20 am on 27 December when all other evidence is that the encounter occurred on 26 December between 3 and 4 am.

ANSWER: The date and time in my notebook are the actual time and dates of the event. I never reviewed that notebook entry until the late 90's (about five years after retirement). The notebook was one of hundreds, if not thousands of pages I used to record security police shift notes with. I suppose it is possible the date varied before I actually noted the exact date. It had no importance to me, considering the magnitude of the event that happened that night, it clearly dwarfed any of the minor facts. I could care less about a date. We (Enlisted Security Police Supervisors) report things in a specific, and will generalize when talking about them later. Since then, I see there has been confusion. I can give no reasonable explanation other than what I have previously stated.

2. What is the basis for your statement at the National Press Club that “over 80 Air Force Personnel... witnessed the takeoff.”

ANSWER: Lets do the math. 67 Security and 14 Law Enforcement personnel were working shift that night, based on duty rosters. More were working due to the holiday schedules and temporary twelve hour shifts. Landing and departure was observed from both RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge. I am not counting in those numbers, personnel from both bases that were working that night at the base operations, fire departments, maintenance, on-base civilians or off base civilians. That is the basis for the statement.

[jpenniston]

Why is there such difference between your report of what happened that night and that of John Burroughs? Could it be that the two (or three) of you first had a brief encounter with the craft (like the one John describes), after which you had your close encounter while you were separated from the other two men?

Answer: The difference is John and the other airmen, were new or junior, and I was the On Scene Security Supervisor. We look at things differently. My main focus, despite the magnitude of what was happening in front of me. Was to determine if there was a viable threat to base priority resources, weapon delivery systems, or base personnel. I had limited time to up-channel a security report or determine it non-hostile. My full focus was on what was happening in front of me. Not the men I posted at various locations.

2. In the SciFi documentary on the Rendlesham Incident, you and Col. Halt discovered that you were talking about different landing sites. Was the landing site that Col. Halt identified the same as the site with indentation marks that John Burroughs discovered during the first night, or was it a different one that was not related to the events of the first night?

Answer: No, they were two geographically separate locations. The indentation marks that John discovered were not the same as the night Colonel Halts encounter. Interesting thing was, both sites had farm houses nearby and the measurements and depressions were identical at both locations. Thus some confusion. A one-in-billion encounter and why would anyone question two sites. We all assumed it was one location because of all the similarities.

3. Can the strange feeling you got while approaching the craft be compared to walking on a sloped surface or to walking while attached to an elastic cord, as if the direction or force of gravity was different?

Answer: The area seemed charged, skin and hair standing on end. I do believe some of the physical reaction could have been adrenalin too. No there was no pulling toward the craft-of-unknown-origin.

4. Could the bright light that emanated from the craft (especially at take-off) be compared to a plasma (like a welding arc)?

Answer: The magnitude of the bright light was as strong as a runway strobe

[IanR]

Thanks for the rapid response and clear answers.

A couple of others, if I may.

1. How long had you been on base when the event occurred.

2. When did you produce this drawing that shows the triangular craft
http://www.earthfiles.com/images/news/U ... 122680.jpg

Thanks again,
Ian

[AdrianF]

Hi Jim and welcome to the forum. Appreciate you taking the time to answer questions.

I have a couple relating to the photographs that you took at the scene, if you are able to answer them.

1. As far as you can recall, which type of film were you using ie, colour or black and white?
2. Were the photos processed by the domestic photo lab or were they processed by either public affairs or the photo units?
3. You mention in your statement from the NPC that the photos were retrieved and apparently over exposed. Did you see the exposed images and if so, do you still have copies of them?

Thanks

[Frank]

2. When did you produce this drawing that shows the triangular craft
http://www.earthfiles.com/images/news/U ... 122680.jpg

The link did not work from my computer, Ian, but you probably refer to this drawing:
http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/images/the-witness-statements/Penniston_3_point_sketch.jpg

[puddlepirate]

Jim

Many thanks for your post and thank you for joining the forum. Could you clarify a couple of points? In your reply to the question about the number of personnel who witnessed the event you stated the following:

67 Security and 14 Law Enforcement personnel were working shift that night, based on duty rosters. More were working due to the holiday schedules and temporary twelve hour shifts. Landing and departure was observed from both RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge

Why would more personnel be working due to the holiday period and why was there a need for 12 hour shifts in addition to the rostered duties? Normally, with personnel on leave, no flying etc, this would be a quiet period. The need for additional duty personnel at this time suggests the base(s) were at an increased alert state. Was this so and if so, what was the cause of the alert?

Also, '... landing and departure was observed from both RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge' That being so is the 2003 site as shown to the BBC more accurate (i.e. in the cleared area immediately opposite Folly House and the Woodbridge landing lights? It would appear that if the landing site was within the forest it would not be visible from Bentwaters, some two miles away. The terms 'landing and departure' suggest an aircraft of some kind, albeit of unknown type/origin. The 2003 site is in line with the Woodbridge runway and any 'odd lights' in that area would be visible from east gate. If this is not the site, then why would the BBC choose to film/interview you there?

Lastly, you mentioned that the landing and departure, was seen by 67 security and the 14 law enforcement personnel, apparently the entire duty watch. If the entire duty watch witnessed the incident, then this suggests they left their posts or whatever they were doing and mustered at a point where they could see what was going on. Those at Bentwaters were some 2 miles away. This suggests whatever landed then departed had to be of a reasonable size and at some point could be seen above the trees or those at Bentwaters would not have been able to see it. I'm a little bit confused by this because if everyone was watching the landing and departure why have they not come forward to describe what they saw? This suggests a highly visible and not entirely unusual occurence and if everyone was watching the event than areas of the bases were left unguarded - unforgiveable if the bases were indeed at an increased alert state. Do the numbers quoted refer to the number of personnel who witnessed the incident from the bases and NOT the number of personnel who went off base on the second night to investigate

I realise there are fairly minor points but I'd like to be absolutely clear as to what was going on at the bases. The content of your post seems to indicate that the bases were at an increased alert state and whatever occured was visible to at least 81 SP/LE plus any other personnel who happened to be around at the time, not to mention civilians and so forth who might have been out and about in the local area. The lack of local interest could suggest that what they saw was something they were accustomed to seeing and other than for the time of year/time of day, not particularly unusual, .

_________________
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)...

[jpenniston]

Why would more personnel be working due to the holiday period and why was there a need for 12 hour shifts in addition to the rostered duties? Normally, with personnel on leave, no flying etc, this would be a quiet period. The need for additional duty personnel at this time suggests the base(s) were at an increased alert state. Was this so and if so, what was the cause of the alert?

Answer: Its common known scheduling for US Air force Security Police. Everything is reduced to minimal manning for flight operations and support. Security on the other hand was increased because we eliminated a full rotation shift and combined them into two others so the staff could take six days off at Christmas or six days off at New Years.
I would have to take a look at the BBC show. But, I haven’t had good productions from the UK. They more worried about ratings than accuracy.


Lastly, you mentioned that the landing and departure, was seen by 67 security and the 14 law enforcement personnel, apparently the entire duty watch. If the entire duty watch witnessed the incident, then this suggests they left their posts or whatever they were doing and mustered at a point where they could see what was going on. Those at Bentwaters were some 2 miles away. This suggests whatever landed then departed had to be of a reasonable size and at some point could be seen above the trees or those at Bentwaters would not have been able to see it. I'm a little bit confused by this because if everyone was watching the landing and departure why have they not come forward to describe what they saw? This suggests a highly visible and not entirely unusual occurrence and if everyone was watching the event than areas of the bases were left unguarded - unforgiveable if the bases were indeed at an increased alert state. Do the numbers quoted refer to the number of personnel who witnessed the incident from the bases and NOT the number of personnel who went off base on the second night to investigate


Answer: Yes it was visible from both bases. Take a runway approach light and move it hundred feet into the air. Set it there for a few seconds. Then have it leave at a high rate of speed. COMMON sense if it is night you can see it. I will forgive you on the part questioning USAF security of those resources on the twin bases. It is clearly that you have no understanding of Security Police and there dedication.

The most important fact about gathering the facts that night. Is that all we did is gather facts, determined the threat level, and then reported the information to higher authority. We make no conjecture, no what if scenarios, we only report observation and facts. That was the extent of our duties that night. Unlike civilians and other untrained personnel wanting to make things fanciful or embellish to fit there needs, it is those type of thoughts that muddle this case. Thank-you for the questions.
Jim

[Frank]

Jim, thanks for answering this barrage of questions!

There seems to be some confusion on the amount of time you actually were close to the craft examining it.
I have heard different stories, varying from 15 to 45 minutes.
How much time did you actually spend around the craft, and was John with you all this time?

[Andrew Pike]

Hello Jim,

I'd like to thank you for you time in what will probably be a huge number of questions, I don't want to add to that too much, but I do have just a couple from the years of looking at this case.

By the way, I got involved because I am a qualified Physicist (Astrophysicist in fact) and I was involved with a plasma physics project at the time. We got alerted to the Christmas sightings by a local astronomer. As they went on for a few nights, I joined him on 29 December to investigate. I got more than I bargained for when the UFO side kicked in! The science of what you saw has interested me ever since as I am one of the few astronomers who admit to seeing UFOs including the triangle.

I am clear on dates, who was where when, etc, so my questions are scientific!

1. You initally saw lights then something mechanical. Certain distances have been quoted over the years but can you give an idea of your distance from the lights/craft when you first realized it was mechanical.

2. Your radio relay with John and Ed eventually broke down and all radio contact was lost. How far was this from the object?

3. When the radio link was lost, what was heard on the radio? Was it nothing as if all power was gone, hiss, cutting in and out, etc,

4. When the craft lifted off, John heard a woman scream. Did you hear anything, however strange that might be, or knew of anybody else who did?

Anyway, once again thanks for your time.

Andrew

[pupil88]

Hi Jim,

I had intended to send this post to the board. My luck, you showed up. Could you comment on it. Also, could you add to it?

Physical and mental effects on witnesses of close UFO encounters

1. electrostatics on the body
2. electromagnetic affects on mind and bodt
3. time slow down
4. potential radioactivity poisoning at close distances
5. noiseless craft movement
6. amnesia
7. psychological effects that are long lasting and disturbing.
8. 'solid' light movements
9. paranormal communication - telepathic

[Wolf]

Hi Jim

Welcome aboard. A few of questions.

1. Based on the fact that there was a large amount of exotic ordinance stored on Bentwaters, and there was nothing based under the 81st at the time that was capable of delivering them, did this storage fall under the theory of "not keeping all your eggs in one basket", or was there a secondary role for the WR bases rather than a secondary mission.

2. If there was a suspected crash outside the base perimeters would there have been a documented DP plan for this type of incident, rather than what appears to be a rather unstructured response. Also as the incident appeared to escalate would not the EA cell in the HWOC have become involved, and if so what has happened to any logs.

3. There have been a few wild stories about the purpose of building 398 in the BW WSA. I'm pretty certain that it was purely for EDM storage, but were there any odd rumours at the time?

V/R

Wolf

[puddlepirate]

Jim

Many thanks for your response. Not quite sure why you felt the need to 'shout' but never mind. You are quite right, I know nothing at all about USAF SP/LE routines. If I did, I would have no need to ask the questions. Likewise I am not familiar with RAF Police routines but I know someone who is very well acquainted with them indeed so it's a simple task to cross check with him. You didn't answer the question about increased security states - were the bases at a heightened security state?

Also, I'd be interested to know if any RAF Police were embedded with SP/LE at the twin bases. This seems to have been fairly normal procedure at other USAF bases elsewhere in the UK. Do you happen to know who was Moreland's deputy?

[jpenniston]

I see there is great interest in this case. John Burroughs and I, are in contact with other key witnesses. We know there are some discrepancies with some of the past reports. We do understand why, and have talked over dissemination of the facts. Our decision is, we have jointly decided on a course of action which will put this to bed once and for all. John will be posting a joint statement on this course of action. Information to help resolve this case will be forth coming in the future, at our time schedule. I want to thank all of the persons who have responded with interest to this case.

Best Wishes

Jim Penniston

[John Burroughs]

Jim
Thanks for comming on the forum and taking question's. As Jim has stated there are discrepancies in what has happened. Up until our phone conversation we have spent very little time talking about them. We both Appreciate the interest you all have in this incident. We are going to work on this together along with other witness to do are best to put together a time line that finally makes sense! We have al lot of information to go over and work out. We will also ask a thread be made on this forum with any question you want to ask! We will look them all over and do are best to answer as many as we can and clear up as many discrepancies as we can in a joint statement down the road. This will take some time but we will come out with what we put togther before the 30th anniversary in December. We both want to thank everyone who has responded with interest to this case. Jim and John