Chris Armold's comments on Facebook

[Frank]

Stephan,

See my previous post: Armold was not there on the third night and missed the events on the first night - there is no doubt about that. He simply was not there when it happened.

The case was compartmentalized, and if you were a witness and had guys like Armold as your collegues, would you tell everybody you just saw a UFO ..? Not unless you like to be called a goof-ball ..

If you were a witness now and saw how the witnesses that did come out are called liars and goof-balls, and saw all the discussions and debunking efforts that haven been going on for almost 30 years now (even among the witnesses themselves), and realized they will probably go on for another 30 years, and saw how certain witnesses tell stories you can't remember, ... would you step in?

[stephan]

If you were a witness now and saw how the witnesses that did come out are called liars and goof-balls, and saw all the discussions and debunking efforts that haven been going on for almost 30 years now (even among the witnesses themselves), and realized they will probably go on for another 30 years, and saw how certain witnesses tell stories you can't remember, ... would you step in?

yep, definitely. With an event allegedly that big I definitely would come forward. However, if you asked me the same question and I knew that nothing extraordinary happened I would definitely not.

[puddlepirate]

AgentA: It's worth taking a look at what Buran says on the 81st Facebook page.....Then once you've read his comments perhaps you might like to tell him he's talking rubbish. I'm pretty sure I know what his response will be.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-f ... l&filter=3

[puddlepirate]

For info this is what Buran says:

Skip Buran
I was the shift commander the first night. Then SSgt Penniston had every opportunity to report everything as it happened. There was no pressure to do otherwise. There was no panicked call for assistance, no incredulous description of a...n unknown object, nothing. They went, looked, and came back. No one was traumatized by the event. No one requested medical help. The Suffolk Constabulary constables who responded also found.....nothing. Folks, this is a non-event, at best a hoax, and is being blown way out of proportion by people who may have self serving motives. It's too bad dissenting opinions don't last long here.

[AgentAppleseed]

Its interesting PuddlePirate, but Im not at all convinced.

[stephan]

Skip Buran
[...] It's too bad dissenting opinions don't last long here.

does this indicate that Armold did not delete his own posts ?

[IanR]

...and all his posts have now gone.

It was a pretty fair bet they would be taken off so I captured them before they went as I knew you wouldn't want to miss them. You can see the page(s) here in PDF format
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Justice%2 ... cebook.pdf

This was the page as it stood shortly before 6 pm Saturday night Nov 13. Armold might even had added something else after I took this capture but by then I'd gone out. I can assure you he did not remove them himself!

Ian

[stephan]

... he also said it:

It's interesting that I was invited to join this group yet for some reason my posts seem to disappear.

[IanR]

... he also said it:

It's interesting that I was invited to join this group yet for some reason my posts seem to disappear.

I posted the message (or one of the messages) he was referring to on page 1 of this thread – you can find it towards the bottom under the title "FACEBOOK PAGE –– THE MISSING MESSAGE".

Ian

[Ignis Fatuus]

Classic. The band continues to play as the ship takes on water. Beautiful.
A message from Chris:

Re: Help us set the record straight
The record is straight. Nothing happened other than a few lights in the woods. There is nothing to correct. The ball is absolutely in the court of the liars. I looked at the website you pointed me towards. Most of the information contained in the "evidence" tab is not evidence. It's information that fails to confirm or deny anything. There is not one piece of evidence, not one, that confirms the presence of an alien ship. No radar signature, no heat, no blast zone, no footprints, no alien soda cans or cigarette butts. All you ahve are a few guys who are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame on the backs of a lie. C'mon you people, if you want your UFO hobby to be credible you MUST toss out the clearly bogus events and this is one of them. To say this is "England's Roswell" is to admit that very little of substance actually happened at Roswell because nothing happened in the woods at Rendelsham except for a few Air Force cops stomping around in the woods. By the way, NO ONE who was in teh forest on either night was armed. We NEVER took firearms off the base, not even when we went downtown to pickup American's who had been arrested by the British Police. These guys are frauds and for those of you who are serious about UFO investigations it's your responsibility to call BULLSHIT on frauds not empower them remaining silent and not challenging them. Can you (or anyone) tell me ONE PIECE of no-shit solid evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there was possibly a UFO in the Rendlesham Forest?

[Admin]

Thanks for the PDF, Ian.

I can't find Armold's latest messages, I assume they have been deleted from the Facebook page. It appears that some of you are in contact with Armold. If so, he is welcome to join up here and say what he thinks without his messages being deleted.

Buran too. If you're out there, join up. Make a statement, short or long. I will not delete any posts without good reason.

Looks like Kevin Conde is back on the scene too. He does not mention the hoax he once claimed to have pulled.

Besides the well known names like Warren, Pennsiton and Halt there were others there. There was a whole squadron. I worked for Bruce Englund. Bobby Ball was the security flight chief opposite me. I was almost certainly the Woodbridge patrol or the LE flight chief the night of Halt’s expedition. All I remember was ...the laughing about the people seeing UFO’s. It was not treated seriously at all. You can throw all the rocks, make all the claims you want, belittle the non-believers until you are blue in the face. It does not change the fact that it was a non-event when it happened, and the stories of the believers are the ones that have morphed over time. I’ve been married to the same woman for going on 37 years. She also retired as a SMSgt, and was with me at Bentwaters/Woodbridge. She does not remember one word about UFO’s being mentioned while we were in England.

so we have at least five people - Conrad, Armold, Buran, Steffens, England - who were there on the nights in question and who either vehemently deny, contradict or simply ignore the claims made by the protagonists of this case.

• 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?
• Englund has never gone on the record. Several others have yet to. It does not mean he "ignores" the incident.
• Steffens again has never gone on the record. It would not be wise to put words in his mouth.
• Armold went out afterwards - Frank posted his original statements. Enough said.

[stephan]

I can't find Armold's latest messages, I assume they have been deleted from the Facebook page. It appears that some of you are in contact with Armold. If so, he is welcome to join up here and say what he thinks without his messages being deleted.

I gave him the link to this forum (replied to one of his comments on fb) yesterday and told him that some people would like to hear what he has to say.

[Admin]

Thank you, Stephan.

I need to add that I have not been able to confirm Skip Buran is who he says he is. I also find it strange that Conde, Buran and Armold all simply appear on the Facebook group's page within a matter of hours of each other. Tread carefully.

[stephan]

I have no doubt they are who they claim they are. The reason why they are all turning up all of a sudden would certainly be the attention the case gets at the moment (30th aniversary). To me it looks like they see an opportunity here to both put things straight and reach as many UFO maniacs as possible at the same time. As you said yourself, some of them certainly don't just ignore the whole issue and followed it in the background...

[stephan]

I do not see why Halt should have gone twice to the forest to investigate. Armold doesn't mention the dates and I suppose that IF he thought it was the next evening then this was due to the fact that nothing had happened on the night of 26/27th. He simply left that day out.

I'll also quote from the document and make a few comments (green) / stress interesting passages:

After midnight, John Burroughs radioed the LE desk and reported he
had seen strange lights in the outside the East Gate on RAF
Woodbridge. I was actually on RAF Lakenheath hanging out at the Law
Enforcement Desk at the time. Burroughs, who liked to draw attention
to himself, often over-reacted to situations and was considered very
unreliable, wanted to know if there were any reports of downed
aircraft.

[...]

In any case, after getting a negative reply from the British Cops,
My flight chief asked me if I wanted to head out to Woodbridge to
meet up with Burroughs and see what was up. I grabbed the back gate
keys, and took the back way to RAF W/B. I met Burroughs at the East
Gate of WB. We left our guns with the guy riding with Burroughs and
drove to the end of the long access road. We left our vehicle and
walked out there.

There was absolutely nothing in the woods. 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.

Eventually we found three depressions in the ground, about the
diameter of a coffee can in a triangular pattern. However, there was
no damage to trees or scorch marks, or any damage to any plant life
in the area. We noted the location of the impressions and departed
the area.

the triangular pattern may have simply been coincidence. If you look at the night sky for example you'll find a lot of stars that form a triangular pattern. In fact, whenever you have three points you'll always end up with a triangle if you connect them (exception: they lie in a row)

[...]

In the morning several of us were asked if we would return to the area to
point out the depressions to some folks who I believe were from
environmental health. They did have some type of instrument for
detecting radiation and I believe they did detect some measure of
radiation, however I don't think it was a significant amount.

[...]

Halt essentially said he planned on coming out to the site in the
evening [does not indicate which one] and one way or another several of us said we'd keep him
company. The guys I remember were John Burroughs, Adrian Bustamante,
and me. I think another officer joined Halt, I believe it was Lt
Bruce England, but I'm not absolutely certain and maybe two other
guys (Possibly one named Pennington, just can't remember for sure)
There was however, no army of USAF guys out in the woods.. No fleet
of vehicles, no towed light rigs, just a half-dozen or so of us
stomping around goofing off.

I brought a camera with me and I think Halt had a tape recorder. We
were out there for hours and someone noticed some lights in the
distance. While they often seemed to be very close in reality as we
tried to approach them we discovered they were very far away. Now
don't confuse what Ijust wrote. Little balls of light were not flying
around us or getting closer and flying away. We initially thought
the lights were closer than they actually were.

In the end I would say we were in the woods for 4 or 5 hours. The
next morning we went home and "B" flight went on break (our three
days off). Three days later we returned to work and made fun of
Burroughs for screwing up our radio fun with his bogus UFO sighting.

considering the above it would not make much sense to spend another 4 hours in the woods doing practically the same thing as the night before. Furthermore Halt does not mention he was out there for two consecutive nights - at least not to my knowledge.

[...]

There were no secret debriefings, no threats, no sudden assignments.
Nothing. It was no big deal.

[...]

Let me say categorically that there were no space ships, no flying
saucers, no little green men, no encounters with aliens, nothing of
the sort.

Sadly many UFO enthusiasts seem to have focused more on what they
would sorely love to hear rather than what actually happened.
Unfortunitaly John Burroughs and Col Halt seemed to have recognized
that and took these "believers" for a ride. In any case, I
seriously doubt that what I tell you will have any effect on the
history of the incident.

... and if you look at the whole text you'll find that it's pretty much the same that Armold says now.

[IanR]

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]

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

[Admin]

Fair points, Ian. I hope for some input from Buran.

[puddlepirate]

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?

[Ignis Fatuus]

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.