Hoax

[Zodian]

This has to be an elaborate hoax, right? I remember the incident being on the news, and was completely fascinated by it. But years of skepticism have left me with no other conclusion than that it's all a sham. Please, prove me otherwise.

And I mean no disrespect to anyone.

Regards, Zodian

[Deep Purple]

Hi Zodian
You dont really elborate why this may be a scam. Other ufo incidents might be a scam , but what if this was the real deal?
There are many explantions for the Rendlesham incident and only one can be right, so most will be wrong, but something starnge happened here. Many of the witnesses would be very confused about what they saw, a glimpse of something so starnge, and for years after trying to peice it together. I dont say the rendlesham incident is an ALien event, but neither do I know its not.
We have lots of members who have various views on the event, why dont you tell us what areas we are wrong in and why?

[Admin]

Welcome Zodian.

This has to be an elaborate hoax, right? I remember the incident being on the news, and was completely fascinated by it. But years of skepticism have left me with no other conclusion than that it's all a sham.

No, there's zero evidence to suggest that we're dealing with a hoax, unless you have any?

You must remember that Lt. Col. Charles Halt, the deputy base commander, reported the incident to the Ministry of Defence. It was no laughing matter.

Please, prove me otherwise.

It's your theory - the burden of proof is on you. What makes you think the incident was a hoax?

[stephan]

as my previous speakers already said you have to elaborate the answer to the question why it was a hoax in your opinion.

There's also another important why question.

Why (the hell) should this be a hoax ? What purpose could be behind it to keep it up for now 30 years ? If I was a proponent of a hoax theory I would check for example questions like:

- is it all about making money with just another UFO story ?
- is it some kind of long-term experiment carried out by the military and/ or the government on people ? (to answer perhaps questions like: how do people react ? would this uncover ''conspiracy theorists'' or opponents of the government or any threats to national security ?)
- could it have been a prank gotten out of hand ?
- was it a cover-up story for a terrestrial incident that involved black projects or downed nuclear aircraft ?

Those are just a few questions which come to my mind and which I've dealt with in regard to the incident in the past. After a long consideration I've discarded them or let's say put them very low on my list of probabilities. The reasons for that are such as:

- likeliness
- seen UFOs (in the original sense of the term) for myself two times and I know people that did, too
- childhood experience with a little (not green but shadowy) man with a big head and the size of the typical Grey alien (even made a sketch of my experience)
- the sheer number of witnesses but also the sheer number of other incidents where similar events allegedly took place
- video footages / photos (I mean good footage here which is perhaps 0.1 % of all material available) that support the idea that ET is visiting us
- the story is simply too big, too many details, too many people involved
- can you think of ANY hoax (unrelated to ET/ UFOs) of such an extent which even stayed ''alive'' for decades without being debunked ?

and other reasons.

So is there room for a hoax ? I say yes, but IMO it's as likely as we are alone in the universe. It would be a gigantic conspiracy with dozens (if not hundreds) of people involved of whom no single person (to my knowledge) has ever retracted his or her statement or claim, i.e. admitted it was just a hoax. If you would find one that did so you'd gain a good starting point for a hoax theory. But there are also official documents available by the Ministry of Defence which at least acknowledges that something happened in late december 1980 at RAF Woodbridgre/ Bentwaters. The issue was even discussed in the British parliament.

[Zodian]

Hi.

I merely posed a question. I've not suggested that anyone is wrong only that if this incident was deemed to be of any importance, then the powers that be would have launched a rigerous and in-depth investigation. Obviously, it wasn't. What the people claimed they saw would have sparked a major alert unless it was already known what the object was to those further up the chain of command, or that the incident did not warrant further scrutiny due to reasons unknown to us. Conversely, the people could be lying or exagerating. The authorities didn't get involved, which speaks volumes. Over time, the incident has become like the Loch Ness monster. I personally have never met anyone who has seen dear old Nessie, but periodically, the media report of sightings. I'm aware there are people who believe the story, and maybe it is true, but I've never met anyone who can categorically say they have actually seen the monster. Same with Rendlesham. Apart from the base commander and two other people, no one else (to my knowledge) has come forward and stated that they saw anything, despite it being claimed that over 40 people witnessed the incident. I was just wondering if this thing had become an urban legend.

[Admin]

The authorities didn't get involved, which speaks volumes.

No, Britain's Ministry of Defence didn't get involved. It seems that others did.

An unscheduled plane (C-5) landed at RAF Woodbridge shortly after the incident occurred. Lt. Col. Charles Halt was denied access to it.
John Burroughs, a witness to the first night of events, said: "It was one C-5 and yes they did have people go out in the forest for several days."

It seems the AFOSI was involved afterwards. There are rumors that certain British intelligence agencies were involved too. Even a local forester, Vince Thurkettle (the original skeptic) was visited and questioned by two suited men just days after the incident. Halt's memo hadn't been sent at that time - the case hadn't 'gone public'.

Same with Rendlesham. Apart from the base commander and two other people, no one else (to my knowledge) has come forward and stated that they saw anything, despite it being claimed that over 40 people witnessed the incident. I was just wondering if this thing had become an urban legend.

Sorry, Zodian - you're wrong. Many more people than "the base commander and two other people" were involved. The books, articles, interviews, television documentaries are all out there. Even our main site, which is 'low on content' at the moment, will provide you with hours of interviews etc. If you really have an interest in the case, maybe you should work through them?

[Zodian]

Well, thanks for the replies. It seems a bit odd to me that with so much information available, and so many people involved, nobody knows what went on. One can speculate or listen to rumours but there is very little in the way of facts regarding the incident. The only thing we have in the way of evidence is eye-witness testimony (notoriously unreliable) and a plaster cast. Not much to go on! Still, its a very interesting subject.

[Frank]

Hi Zodiac,

I can imagine that you think this way when first confronted with this stuff. It is very far from our everyday experience and we just can’t explain it (or all of it). But on the other hand: why would we assume that our current view of the world is the measure of all things?

I agree with Admin, the list of evidence for the RFI is a longer than you presume and you really should study this site if you’re interested. A short list just off the top of my head:
1. An official memorandum to the MOD
2. Ground indentations that were significantly more radioactive than background
3. Radar observations (no tapes, unfortunately, but there are witness statements of radar operators)
4. Excerpts from a memo tape recording made during the third night
5. Sketches of the craft(s) made by the witnesses
6. Witness observations that fit a world-wide pattern of UFO sightings

Witness observations are not 100% reliable, you’re right. But until now ALL primary witnesses who have come forward have stated that they witnessed something that cannot be explained in mundane terms. We are talking about SIX witnesses here that took part in the actual events:

- Charles Halt
- Jim Penniston
- John Burroughs
- Adrian Bustinza
- Monroe Nevels
- Larry Warren

Until now there has been NO primary witness who stated this was a hoax or something that could be explained in mundane terms. All hoax theories and mundane explanations offered so far simply do not fit the data of this case.

You can also turn the evidence question upside down: Suppose that some intelligence far ahead of us would occasionally pay us a visit, what more evidence would you expect?

There’s a very big universe out there, and our solar system is one of the new kids on the block when you look at its age. If you do the math on proliferation of the galaxy by intelligent life forms, the outcome is that they should already be here (the famous “Fermi paradox”). So extraterrestrial visitation is a scientific probability and in that sense cannot be compared with the Loch Ness monster or other urban legends.

To “them” we would probably be a primitive life form in an interesting state of our development. So unfortunately we cannot expect a chat with them over the SETI radio waves or a visit to the chairman of the UN.. Instead we can only hope that any interference with us is not meant to harm us.

[stephan]

the list of witnesses is far bigger than the six you mentioned, Frank

[Zodian]

The MOD said that they did not consider the incident to have been of any significant risk, implying they already knew what had happened. Maybe this was on a need to know basis and maybe the USAF airmen simply didn't need to know. Because some things remain secret doesn't warrent the supposition that we have been visited by extra terrestrials. And what became of Larry Warren? Wasn't he the one who was discredited?

Like I said in an earlier post, the only bits of evidence we have are eye-witness testimony and a plastercast of an indentation in the ground. There will be an explanation for this, it's just that we are not privvy to it as yet. Maybe in another thirty years when the MOD releases more of its declassified files, we will have our answer. Until then, it's going to be a great debating matter with all kinds of fantastical theories being put forward, and all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork. I look forward to reading more on the Rendlesham Incident

[Admin]

Because some things remain secret doesn't warrent the supposition that we have been visited by extra terrestrials. And what became of Larry Warren? Wasn't he the one who was discredited?

I agree with you. I think you'll find a lot of people on this forum would too - there has been a lot of discussion about military experiments/accidents over the last few years here.

Larry Warren is still fighting the battle, so to speak. He wasn't discredited. You can find his book "Left At East Gate" on Google Books, which provides you with a nice preview:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6uy1Sb ... &q&f=false

Scroll a few pages in and you'll find excerpts from letters sent to the authors. A letter from Greg Battram, another witness, says "I saw you out there."

Like I said in an earlier post, the only bits of evidence we have are eye-witness testimony and a plastercast of an indentation in the ground.

There's more than that. As I said, it's all out there. Eye-witness testimony, as "unreliable" as you claim it to be, cannot be dismissed... especially when there's an abundance of it from people who, by lying, could risk destroying their careers.

[stephan]

And what became of Larry Warren? Wasn't he the one who was discredited?

that's what I thought, too when I began to analyze the Rendlesham case back in 2008. But that was due to some statements made by other witnesses in regard to him (partly taken out of context) and wrong statements made by the media such as that Larry would have changed his story over time or that he hadn't been seen by other witnesses on the base. But I could not verify those allegations. Also, it's a bit kind of strange that he told his complete story right from the beginning while some of the other witnesses only added a few new details to theirs once in a while. A few statements made in LAEG seem to indicate that it is rather others who should be mistrusted or at least their statements should be accepted under reserve. There's some confusion about a few issues that Larry mentioned in his book - such as the underground installation where he believes to have seen alien spaceships - but those things (imo) also confuse himself and he's not really certain about it, too.

What makes him ''special'' - even though that may sound a bit strange - is that he has faced a lot of issues that were intended to villainize him. For example when he tried to re-enlist in the Air Force latter was not able to access his records and at one point it was said that he hadn't even been born. The NSA seems to be the organisation responsible here - which if true - speaks volumes, i.e. it shows that they try to discredit him by all means. The fact that the media is rather focussed on other witnesses than on him shows that the NSA (and possibly others) has been successful to some extent. Nevertheless Larry has never given up to convince people. Thus, a lot of good pros for his credibility. We also must not forget that he was the whistleblower. Without him the case might have never become public.

[Frank]

There's some confusion about a few issues that Larry mentioned in his book - such as the underground installation where he believes to have seen alien spaceships - but those things (imo) also confuse himself and he's not really certain about it, too.

I also have a lot of trouble with this episode, Stephan. To me a secret alien base at Rendlesham Forest is far beyond what I am willing to believe. And even if it was true, it would be very stupid to show this secret to a potential whistle blower (this only happens in Bond movies from the seventies

I have been trying to find explanations for this episode. One of them is that he simply witnessed a secret submarine base during the time he was drugged. The other one is that Larry was abducted, and that all abductees were interrogated using drugs to get as much information from them as possible. Maybe he mixed some things he witnessed during his abduction with the events that took place during his interrogation. (But I know that this is far beyond what others are willing to believe.. )

A third explanation of course is that Larry is making things up. But like you said, he was the whistleblower that brought this case to the public domain and that should give him some credit.

[Zodian]

Hi Frank

Re: 'But like you said, he was the whistleblower that brought this case to the public domain and that should give him some credit.'

Certainly gave him some publicity for his book!

Maybe you can help me out here. Was just looking at google maps, and from what I can make out, Rendlesham is to the West of the airfield where as the airmen talk about a gate to the East. I'm not familiar with the area nor the topography. Any tips?

To be honest, I'm more inclined to go with the downed aircraft theory. Maybe the Brits were eavesdropping on the Yanks from a surveillence helicopter when the pilot lost control. The eerie lights could have been oxy-acetylene cutting tools to dismember the chopper and get it out of the way ASAP before the Americans got wind of it. Would also explain the scorch marks on the trees, and some helicopters have tricycle like landing gear. Food for thought!

[Deep Purple]

A couple of things to bear in mind.
If the MOD know what happened and it was not a problem why would they perhaps tell us the truth in 30 yrs time?

Have a think about the assisnation in the 60s of President Kennedy--- we know the out come of the event-- the president got shot--- a lot else is still up for grabs and we cant be sure and this has had a huge amount pf publicty etc
So imagine if something really weird happened like the RFI, something truely unusual, how could you be sure what happened?
I think Kennedy was shot by mutiple gunmen-- but these have stayed " off the radar" and at this length of time probably will remain so.

[stephan]

during the time he was drugged.

that could be the key. Drugs (like LSD or/ and other) can induce any kind of hallucinations and it's possible to ''implant'' thoughts, pictures, voices into one's mind simply by showing the victim certain scenes that latter will later reconstruct in a way that will more or less make sense to him. In Larry's case such indoctrination techniques may have included saying things like ''we, the aliens, gave religion to you humans'' or showing a screen with the silhouette of a typical Grey alien which ''communicates'' via earphones on Larry's head.

It is very important that Adrian Bustinza did not confirm Larry's story of the underground base (p. 144) although he was allegedly with him in the parking lot (which I think he may have confirmed, also on p. 144) - the place where that episode began. I guess the drug injection starts here:

I knew something was wrong [...] The men said nothing, and as I bent forward to get in, everything went black.

and its effects stop here:

I regained consciousness while walking through a door.

it would make sense that some dubious guys did this to him because he clearly had caused some trouble by asking too many questions and telling people like his mother about it although he had been instructed not to do so. So they (whoever they were) had to assume that his ''revelations'' won't stop. Among the options they had available they chose the drug method. As they knew that he would tell people about everything strange he had experienced on the base they invented the story of the underground base with aliens and space-ships that nobody would believe - maybe including even himself. The effects of that method are visible up to this very day and on this forum: we, i.e. those who have not been involved, are not willing to accept this story and hence we consider the possibility that everything he said was made up. Bustinza may have escaped being drugged and hence has no recollection of the underground part. But it could be that - if he was with him and the men in the parking lot - that he was threatened in some way. Maybe they told him something like:

''Your friend is a bit too talkative. So he requires medical care. But you, you seem not to be affected that much. For you it may be sufficient we tell you that bullets are cheap if you don't keep your mouth shut.''

this could explain Bustinza's strange reaction to Fawcett's allusion to the underground complex:

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't want to say anything else. I'm with you.

There are a few other things which I personally think don't make much sense but that has to do with my own experiences. But most of what I've read so far sounds very real to me and I'm absolutely able to relate to it.

@ Deep Purple

agreed, Oswald wasn't the one who killed Kennedy, the bullets that did kill him came from behind that fence (recently watched a good documentary about it). Good example of a government cover-up/ conspiracy.

[Zodian]

If its of any relevence, I'm actually married to a US airwoman. A staff sargeant. What a nut-case she turned out to be!