Who Inspected The Craft ?

[alive555]

in Leslie Keans book there is chapter on Rendlesham written in 2 sections on one hand by by Jim P and in another by Charles Halt.

in Jims section he says that that the craft was inspected for 45 minutes by himself and John Burroughs. he also says "we inspected"

question(s) I have is ;-

1. what desciption has been made of the craft officially or unofficially by John Buroughs. what exactly did he claim to see ?
what did he think it was ?

2. Jim said they inspected the craft for 45 mins - this seems like a very of a long time indeed to inspect the potentially the biggest discovery ever without both (1) reporting this via radio, and (2) inso doing also calling in support - after all they were in the military. ?

is it not more likely that they would have immediately reported this upon finding the craft - as would be normal military protocol ?

[Admin]

1. what desciption has been made of the craft officially or unofficially by John Buroughs. what exactly did he claim to see ?
what did he think it was ?

A group of unusual coloured lights, which gave the impression of a craft. John never saw a solid, structured object. Perhaps he wasn't close enough? Who knows...

http://rendlesham-incident.co.uk/eviden ... statement/



A more recent illustration, which John has stated is accurate.

[stephan]

.. if I look at those pictures (ignoring the story about the landed craft with hieroglyphs on it) I could very well imagine that this could have been staged with artificial means like floodlights, flash powders and what have ya (like I described it in my last post in the thread Ian was right). This is of course just a scenrio and it wouldn't explain Jim's version of the event (craft leaving through the trees within a blink of an eye etc.). What I'd like to know is what John thinks about that. John, could you totally exclude that it was staged - perhaps by your superiors as some sort of psychological test ? I only ask because I'm curious, no bad intentions

[Frank]

Jim said they inspected the craft for 45 mins - this seems like a very of a long time

You just hit the weak spot of the first night, Alive555.

All documents that have surfaced (five witness statements, the Halt memo, and the Suffolk police log) fit to a timeline that starts at 03:00, ends at about 04:30 and has room only for a short encounter after which the craft leaves. See http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=812
Jim is the only witness claiming a 45 minute investigation and his notebook is the only piece of documentation supporting a close inspection of the craft. Unfortunately the date and times in his notebook do not exactly match the other documents. His notebook starts at 12:20/12:50, and the take-off is timed at 02:45. The date is December 27 instead of December 26.

There are a lot of opinions about the reasons for this. Skeptics claim he made this story up and fabricated his notebook afterwards. I am not a skeptic but simply looking for the truth. I find it hard to believe that Jim actually fabricated false evidence, but I also find it hard to believe there was a full blown 45 minute investigation without any trace in the witness statements or in John's memory.

My current best guess is that Jim did walk around the craft taking notes, but only for a few minutes. Just try it yourself: You really dont need more than 2-3 minutes to inspect a small craft and scribble about five pages of notes including the symbols etched on it. Why does he claim a 45 minute investigation? Probably because his hypnotic regressions made this episode appear much longer.

My second best guess is that his encounter was on his way back, while separated from the other men.

I think the witness statements are timed 03:00 because they were made later, the events lasted throughout the night, the British police were called very late, so an estimate was made that was about right and was not too embarrassing to the USAF.

But it remains an enigma and hopefully the men are able to present a convincing timeline on December 28.

(just read Stephan's post - if it was staged, it must have been the best hoax of the century...)

[stephan]

(just read Stephan's post - if it was staged, it must have been the best hoax of the century...)

I agree, that would have been a very good one.

[alive555]

sorry i meant very long time not a very of a long time !

back to the book (its just published last 2 months) in which Jim says (hes the author in the chapter)

quote ;-

"following security protocol, we completed a thorough on-site investigation, including a full inspection of the craft."

question who exactly is "we" and if "we" includes John Burroughs what is his account of this extraordinary up close inspection of the craft ?

you can argue all day about what lights are or are not - but u absolutely cannot argue with touching a physical craft.

to my mind this is far and away the most critical piece of evidence put forward that im very surprised its not already well documented.

i guess it must be somewhere - who can fill in these gaps ?

[Ignis Fatuus]

Nobody inspected the craft, because there was no craft to inspect.
Wake up and smell the coffee sci-fi fans...we've been fed turd burgers.
The $#it is about to hit the fan.

[Admin]

Nobody inspected the craft, because there was no craft to inspect.

From the initial witness statements, it's clear an object of some type was seen:

Penniston’s USAF witness statement mentions an “object” which is “definitely mechanical in nature”.
Buran’s witness statement states: “They appeared to get very close to the lights, and at one point SSgt Penniston stated that it was a definite mechanical object.”
Chandler’s witness statement states: “On one occasion Penniston relayed that he was close enough to the object to determine it was definitely a mechanical object.”

[Ignis Fatuus]

Sorry Admin...you can reshuffle the deck chairs all you like - but this ship is going down. Its a bummer for you as you have put alot of effort into the site.

My suggestion to the cast of this play would be: find yourselves a chat show and spill your guts on it.

Larry you should have picked up on the hint...the Universe works in mysterious ways.

[stephan]

''mechanical'' could be anything from a car to some sort of framework (with colored floodlights on it).

[Admin]

Sorry Admin...you can reshuffle the deck chairs all you like - but this ship is going down. Its a bummer for you as you have put alot of effort into the site.

My suggestion to the cast of this play would be: find yourselves a chat show and spill your guts on it.

Larry you should have picked up on the hint...the Universe works in mysterious ways.

Believe me, Ignis, I have nothing to gain or lose in any of this. For a long time I have been 'on the fence' regarding the whole incident, and other than Rendlesham I have no interest in UFOs. The website costs just a few pounds per month to run and as for effort, a few hours here and there is all it takes. If the ship sinks - as you expect it to - so be it.

[stephan]

other than Rendlesham I have no interest in UFOs. [...] If the ship sinks - as you expect it to - so be it.

unfortunately - if it sinks - the backlash may be huge. A lot of people in the UFO community will start questioning other incidents and maybe even the whole UFO/ ET issue. I have to admit, I am not excluded from that process (just take a look at my YT channel and you'll see what I mean). But let's keep in mind one thing: even if this case should turn out to be not ET/ UFO related (just to put it mildly) that does not necessarily mean that ET has not visited Earth and it certainly doesn't mean that we are alone in the universe. And despite all we would still have learned a lot from this case. Anyways, you are doing a great job here, Admin.

Again - just IF

[alive555]

before u all jump up and down why not let Burroughs respond .

[AgentAppleseed]

Alive, the radios were down. There is believed to have been electromagnetic interference in the area possibly from the UFO.

[sburan]

''mechanical'' could be anything from a car to some sort of framework (with colored floodlights on it).

Or an SP vehicle with red and blue emergency lights, amber turn indicators and hazard lights, and white headlights. Or, nothing at all except the lights already accounted for.

[John Burroughs]

Skip
H mm since Bud and I were on patrol and both are vehicle were accounted for who's patrol vehicle was it. And I never knew patrol car's could leave the ground and go up into the sky! Unless Patrol car's can fly just like lighhouses can! And what lights were allready accounted for? Again I ask did you ever go out into the Forrest to check out what we reported? And why did you not put this in your offical statement? Are you now saying the statement you made was false? I beleive you swore the statement you made was true are you now saying it was not?

[Frank]

John, I’m not a skeptic but just a rational guy looking for the facts.

- The facts show without any reasonable doubt that Halt and his men witnessed unidentified objects with colored lights on them that moved fast across the sky, and one of them emitted beams of light.
- The facts also show that the red, sun-like object was not at 110 degrees, but to the left of the lighthouse when Halt viewed it through the star scope (http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=838).

It may surprise you, but the facts also show no essential conflict between Armold’s story and that of you and Halt:
- Armold joined you on the first night after the events.
- Armold probably thinks he was a witness to the third night (27/28) while in reality he was a witness to the second night (26/27), when he joined Halt investigating the area but nothing of interest was found (Halt went out to the woods twice, for details see http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=842&start=45#p7841)

So, what do the facts tell about your story versus that of Fred Buran?
Again, they show no essential conflict.

- You saw strange lights you couldn’t explain, Fred Buran confirms it.
- Fred Buran thinks there is a mundane explanation for what you’ve seen, you have been looking for one but haven’t found one in thirty years. You saw them – Fred didn’t; he just gives his opinion.
- What both of you are saying now is the same as can be read in the original witness statements made 30 years ago.

What about Kevin Conde? He has a strong opinion about the case but does not give any convincing new facts.


BUT:
The facts do show a HUGE conflict between Jim’s story and the rest of the data on this case. To my knowledge, the explanations Jim gave thus far are:
- We look at things differently.
- Our memories differ somewhat, and we don’t know why.

Sorry to say this, but even to someone like me, who is open-minded regarding the UFO phenomenon, this doesn’t sound convincing at all.

So why is there no convincing explanation for this? And if there is, why doesn’t Jim simply post it on this forum? The silence is deafening ..
His credibility is at stake!

[stephan]

And I never knew patrol car's could leave the ground and go up into the sky! Unless Patrol car's can fly just like lighhouses can!

... and why haven't you mentioned that in the statement ? As I understood it the lights were always on the ground. I haven't found the passage where they left the ground up into the sky. Perhaps you can help me here ?

lights coming from the woods [...] white light shining into the trees [...] The whole time I could see the lights and the white light was almost at the edge of the road and the blue and red lights were still out in the woods [...] the lights were moving back and they appeared to stop in a bunch of trees [...] what ever it was started moving back towards the open field [...] the lights moved out into the open field [...] You could see the lights down by a farmer’s house [...] we saw a blue light to our left in the trees

[IanR]

... and why haven't you mentioned that in the statement ? As I understood it the lights were always on the ground. I haven't found the passage where they left the ground up into the sky. Perhaps you can help me here ?

Oh, the rapid take-off into the sky is another detail added years later and dramatically reconstructed on those various credulous TV programmes. Trouble is, it didn't happen. Chandler, standing nearby never saw it, nor did Bertolino or the others who were following the radio transmissions.

As we know from Armold, the lights hadn't left because he went out and saw them with Burroughs later, down by that same ole farmhouse whose occupants blissfully slept while alien craft were winging their chimney pots on two or even three successive nights.

And how disturbing that Linda MH should show that video of John's hypnosis, even if she got him to agree. NCF1 raised the point that sightings like this affect people's lives, and we know John has been the most affected by this. LMH should be protecting a vulnerable witness, not exposing him to public ridicule.

Ian

[arvd]

I know it must seem insignificant, but the strangest thing about the whole RFI for me is the Halt tape. To me, when you hear Halt say "STRANGE" or "THERES SOMTHING VERY STRANGE" or "WIERD", it sounds like something out of a film. To me it sounds very corney.

What do you think ?

Other than that its a his word against ours story that will never go away.