Timeline 1st night from original witness statements

[Frank]

When I used the original witness statements to create the timeline of the first night - putting related pieces together - some interesting facts emerged:

1. The statements tell a remarkably consistent story.
2. Jim’s extensive investigation of a craft probably took place after Buran ordered the termination of the investigation. This is the only moment in the timeline that seems to fit. There are some interesting clues that he continued his search for the lights after Buran’s order, and walked straight back from where they came because he had spotted the lights again. He also seems to have been separated from the other two men during these 45 minutes because the other two men took a road back after Buran’s order. See notes in the timeline below for details.

The timeline is in seven parts. I added additional notes at some parts. Each part contains the relevant statements from the original documents. These witness statements are not as close to real-time as Halt’s tape of the third night, but as close as you can get - they are probably more reliable as factual evidence than 30-year old memories.

---------------------------------------------------------
Part I : Observing the lights during arrival of Penniston and Cabansag
---------------------------------------------------------

Penniston: A large yellow glowing light was emitting above the trees. In the centre of the lighted area directly in the centre ground level, there was red light blinking on and off 5 to 10 second intervals. And a blue light that was being for the most part steady.

Burroughs: 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. A security unit was sent down to the gate and when they got there they could see it too.

Buran: I directed SSgt Coffey, the on duty Security Controlled to attempt to ascertain from SSgt Penniston whether or not the lights could be marker lights of some kind, to which SSgt Penniston said that he had never seen lights of this colour or nature in the area before. He described them as Red, blue, white and orange.

Chandler: Upon arrival, SSgt Penniston immediately notified CSC that he too was observing these lights and requested to make a closer observation.

>> Note: The colors of the lights are reported very consistently as red, blue, white, and yellow/orange. Nobody reports a green light, for instance. Halt’s memo states: “It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank(s) of blue lights underneath.”

---------------------------------------------------------
Part II: Walking toward the lights after leaving the vehicle
---------------------------------------------------------

Penniston: Left vehicle, proceeded on foot. Burroughs and I were approx. 15-20 meters apart and proceeding on a true east direction from logging road. The area in front of us was lighting up a 30 meter area.

Burroughs: We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that let into where the lights were coming from, and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman screaming. Also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noises, and there was a lot of movement in the woods.

Cabansag: Due to the terrain we had to on by foot. We kept in constant contact with CSC. While we walked, each one of us would see the lights. Blue, red, white, and yellow. The beckon light turned out to be the yellow light. We would see them periodically, but not in a specific pattern. As we approached, the lights would seem to be at the edge of the forest.
When we got about 75-50 meters, MSgt Chandler/Flight Chief, was on the scene. CSC was not reading our transmissions very well, so we used MSgt Chandler as a go-between. He remained back at out vehicle.

Buran: I monitored their progress (Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag) as they entered the wooded area.

Chandler: After several minutes, Penniston requested my presence. I departed RAF Bentwaters through Butley Gate for RAF Woodbridge. When I arrived, SSgt Penniston, A1C Burroughs and Amn Cabansag had entered the wooded area just beyond the clearing at the access road.
We set up radio relay between SSgt Penniston, myself and CSC.

>> Note: Cabansag states that the beacon light turned out to be the yellow light, which means that the beacon light could already be seen separate from the red, white, and blue lights of the object. The object clearly was a separate entity - not the same as the lighthouse - but it may have been in the same general direction as the lighthouse.

---------------------------------------------------------
Part III: Closing in on the object; the object moves back
---------------------------------------------------------

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.

Burroughs: All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving back towards the open field.

Cabansag: We were about 100 meters from the edge of the forest when I saw a quick movement, it look visible for a moment . It look like it spun left a quarter of a turn, then it was gone. I advised SSgt Penniston and A1C Burroughs. We advised CSC and proceeded in extreme caution.

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. He also stated that there was lots of noises in the area which seemed to be animals running around.

>> Note: Penniston was at a distance of 50 meters from the object. However, Cabansag talks about being at 100 meters from the edge of the forest when he saw the object leave, and about advising Penniston and Burroughs. This seems to indicate he was at a distance of 50- 70 meters from Jim during this episode, probably acting as a temporary additional radio relay to Chandler because of the heavy EM interference near the object.

---------------------------------------------------------
Part IV: Chase and disappearance, only beacon light still visible
---------------------------------------------------------

Penniston: We proceeded after it then lost sight of it.

Burroughs: After a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field. We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field. You could see the lights down by a farmer's house. We climbed over the fence and started walking toward the red and blue lights and they just disappeared. Once we reached the farmer's house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it.

Cabansag: As we entered the forest, the blue and red lights were not visible anymore. Only the beacon light, was still blinking. We figured the lights were coming from past the forest, since nothing was visible when we passed through the woody forest. We would see a glowing near the beacon light, but as we got closer we found it to be a lit up farm house.

Buran: SSgt Penniston reported getting near the object and then all of a sudden said they had gone past it and were looking a marker beacon that was in the same direction as the other lights.

Chandler: Each time Penniston gave me the indication that he was about to reach the area where the lights were he would give an extended estimated location. He eventually arrived at a 'beacon light', however, he stated that this was not the light or lights he had originally observed.

>> Note: Burroughs saw the lights near a farmer’s house when they chased it, and then saw them disappear. To Cabansag the lights were not visible anymore as he entered the forest and he never saw them at the farm house. Again, this seems to indicate he was some distance behind Burroughs and Penniston when the chase started, because he had acted as a temporary extra radio relay to Chandler while the other men were closing in on the object. He probably joined the men during the chase but was never close enough to see the lights at the farmhouse just before they disappeared.

---------------------------------------------------------
Part V: Moving further, identification of beacon light, termination of investigation, blue streaking light
---------------------------------------------------------

Penniston: On the way back we encountered a blue streaking light to the left only lasting a few seconds.

Burroughs: We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse. We had just passed a creak and were told to come back when we saw a blue light to our left in the trees. It was only there for a minute and just streaked away.

Cabansag: We ran and walked a good 2 miles past out the vehicle, until we got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance. We informed CSC that the light beacon was farther than we thought, so CSC terminated our investigation. A1C Burroughs saw the light again, this time it was coming from the left of us, as we were walking back to our patrol vehicle. We got in contact with SSgt Penniston and we took a walk to where we saw the lights. Nothing.

Buran: They continued to look further, to no avail. At approximately 3:43 hrs, I terminated the investigation and ordered all units bad to their normal duties.

Chandler: He was instructed to return. While on route out of the area he reported seeing lights again almost in direct pass where they had passed earlier. Shortly after this, they reported that the lights were no longer visible.

>> Note: After seeing the blue light to their left, Cabansag talks about “getting in contact with Penniston”, which indicates Penniston was already separated from the other men at that time (see part VI below). Chandler states that Penniston reported seeing lights again almost in direct pass where they had passed earlier. Was this the reason why Penniston was separated from the men. Did he continue his search for the lights by walking straight back from where they came after Buran gave the order to terminate the investigation while the other men took a road back (see part VI below)?

---------------------------------------------------------
Part VI: Walking back, informing Suffolk police, and possible examination of craft by Jim
---------------------------------------------------------

Penniston: After 45 min walk, arrived at our vehicle.

Burroughs: After that we didn't see anything and returned to the truck.

Cabansag: A1C Burroughs and I took a road, while SSgt Penniston walked straight back from where we came. Finally, we made it back to our vehicle, after making contact with the PC's and informing them of what we saw.

>> Note: Cabansag states that Penniston took a straight route back through the forest while he and Burroughs took a road back. Did Penniston have his close encounter while travelling back alone through the forest after Buran terminated the investigation? There was plenty of time for that, since the walk back took about 45 minutes which would mean the men arrived back at their vehicle at about 4:30 (about 45 minutes after Buran gave his order).
The Suffolk police was informed shortly after 4:00 (the call was made by Armold) and sent some men over there to investigate. This fits nicely with Cabansag’s statement that they informed the PC’s on their way back, i.e. approximately between 3:45 and 4:30.

---------------------------------------------------------
Part VII: Reporting upon arrival
---------------------------------------------------------

Cabansag: After that we met MSgt Chandler and we went in service again after termination of the sighting.

Buran: I directed SSgt Penniston to take notes of the incident when he came in that morning. After talking with him face to face concerning the incident, I am convinced that he saw something out of the realm of explanation for him at that time.

Chandler: SSgt Penniston returned to RAF Woodbridge. After talking to the three of them, I am sure that they had observed something unusual. At no time did I observe anything from the time I arrived at RAF Woodbridge.

[puddlepirate]

Frank

Thanks for that. Most useful.

Having visited the forest and the farmer's field many times and having read and re-read the witness statements, I strongly believe that the airmen who went out on the first night were not where they are believed to have been but were actually in Oak Wood, just a bit further to the south. From the edge of Oak Wood it should be possible to see the lighthouse because the land gradually reduces in height all the way to the coast giving a clear line of sight. A long while ago another contributor to this forum suggested this possibility and it is worth considering because if an observer stands at the edge of the alleged farmer's field the view of the lighthouse is blocked by high ground in the distance. However, by moving a few hundred yards to the right, the landscape changes - and other elements such as the field and so on, still fit - it's just that it is now a different field.. there is still a farm, small streams and other fields. Check an OS map and you will be able to verify this.

[Frank]

Hi Puddlepirate,

Yes, I was studying the maps recently and found out that a distance of two miles from the vehicle in a straight line towards the lighthouse would even take them beyond Oak Wood. So it is perfectly possible that some of the events took place there. I never visited the place myself but saw some daylight pictures on Ian's website that were taken from the edge of the farmer's field. You can clearly see the farmhouse on them and to the right of it, the lighthouse (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.htm).

I do wonder which road John and Ed may have taken back, and where that places the "streaking blue light" on the map.


Another puzzle is the fact that the times in Jim's notebook do not seem to correspond with the timeline. But there may be an unexpected yet simple explanation for that: Clocks and watches are affected by strong EM fields. I found a short clip that demontrates the effect of a strong magnet on clocks and watches (even digital watches), it is very interesting (and presented as a 'magic trick' here): http://www.metacafe.com/watch/652082/stop_time/

I once was a witness of this effect myself. Many years ago I visited a TV tube factory. Alongside the manufacturing line stood a degaussing coil – a square wooden frame the size of a TV tube with an electric coil inside. Each TV tube was placed in front of the degaussing coil, after which an alternating current was sent through the coil which exposed the tube to an alternating EM field to demagnetize the metal inside the tube. One of the supervisors was causally leaning on the degaussing coil, and each time the coil was activated I saw the dials on his watch spinning!

So possibly no spooky missing time here, or the fabrication of false evidence by a witness searching for ever lasting fame and glory, but good-old EM forces acting on simple electronics inside a plain wristwatch.


That still does not explain the date (Dec 27) and time (12:20 or 12:50) in the heading of his notebook, however (http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.htm). But maybe the earliest report of strange lights already came in at this time, so Jim only got the date wrong. A clue that this could be the case can be found in the statements by Chris Armold (http://web.archive.org/web/20021210083709/www.ufoworld.co.uk/v15.txt):
"After midnight, John Burroughs radioed the LE desk and reported he had seen strange lights outside the East Gate on RAF Woodbridge. I was actually on RAF Lakenheath hanging out at the Law Enforcement Desk at the time."

We know that John first did some investigation himself before Jim was called in, so the starting time of 12:20/12:50 may still fit the general timeline.

[Frank]

Another puzzle is the fact that the times in Jim's notebook do not seem to correspond with the timeline. But there may be an unexpected yet simple explanation for that: Clocks and watches are affected by strong EM fields.

In this recent interview: http://www.eup.mikes-pc.net/, Jim states that his watch showed 45 minutes of 'missing time' after the incident and that the EM fields from the object may have been responsible for that - he just doesn't know.
A watch that was 45 minutes behind could explain the fact that the times he put in his notebook do not closely match the timeline that emerges from the witness statements.

[AdrianF]

Yeah, but does it explain the date? That would mean about 23 hours of missing time..

[Frank]

Yeah, but does it explain the date? That would mean about 23 hours of missing time..

That's true, but to be mistaken about a date when you are in a hurry to investigate a possible aircraft crash is understandable, especially around midnight (even reading a date from your watch around that time can be difficult because the date indicator is 'in between dates' for some time around midnight).

Just as an experiment, I took the time in Jim's notebook (12:50) as the correct time at which he first thought he would be investigating an aircraft crash and tried to build a scenario from that (after all, Jim's notebook was allegedly made at the spot and the starting time of 3:00 in the witness statements was recalled from memory days later). The other two times that I assumed to be correct are the time of termination of the investigation (which is very specific) and the entry in the Suffolk police log. I also assumed a mean speed of 1,5 - 2,5 miles/hour in the dark forest and its surroundings.

It appears that a scenario is possible that includes Jim's encounter and a take-off around 3:30 (I assume Jim's watch was 45 minutes behind at the time of the take-off - he put 2:45 as the time of the take-off in his notebook). Moreover, there is about 45 minutes of lost radio contact in this scenario, no mention of the second encounter to Buran and Chandler, and an explanation for the different memories of Jim and John.

(Of course the fact that it is possible does not make it true, but anyhow it was fun to do )

00:30 – Funny lights seen by Steffens and Burroughs – short investigation
00:40 – The decide to call it in. CSC informed, Jim asked to assist
00:50 – Jim arrives, start of entry in Jim’s notebook: aircraft crash
01:00 – Arrival at logging road, Chandler’s assistance requested
01:10 – Vehicle abandoned, arrival of Chandler at vehicle
01:20 – Animal noises, static electricity
01:30 – Approaching the craft and identifying it as something mechanical
01:40 – Craft has left, in pursuit
01:50 – Arrived at farmhouse, craft disappeared - confusion and agitation
02:00 – Walking towards beacon light
02:10
02:20
02:30 – Identification of lighthouse, the men decide to go back and look further
02:40 – They have returned to the farmhouse, radio interference, Jim decides to split up to maintain radio contact
==== start of lost radio contact ====
02:50 – The men have split up, Jim is walking back towards the forest; radio contact begins to break up
03:00 – Jim approaches the craft
03:10 – Craft found and investigated for 20-30 minutes – Jim has no radio contact
03:20 – The other men decide to go search for Jim
03:30 – Take-off, John approaches Jim who suddenly finds John standing next to him
==== radio contact restored ====
03:40 – Radio contact restored after approximately 45 minutes – the men report they are OK
03:50 – The men discuss how to report this, Jim is unaware that John never fully witnessed Jim’s investigation
03:54 – Buran decides to terminate the investigation and instructs the men to return
04:00 – The men see a blue streaking light and investigate
04:10 – Suffolk police is informed
04:11 – Entry in Suffolk police log
04:20 – Police arrives and is informed by the men

Further assumptions/conclusions:
• The men were separated for about 50 minutes in a total time span of 210 minutes. To John and Ed this was a period where they were looking for the craft but found nothing, so not something to keep in memory very vividly. So in their memory, they were not separated for long and only had the first encounter.
• Chandler and Buran lost radio contact for 45 minutes after the men positively identified the light house and the lights of the craft were long gone. To their knowledge nothing of significance happened during these 45 minutes so they did not put it in their report.
• Jim kept his notebook to himself and never reported his close encounter. He only reported some details of the craft’s appearance to Halt and others – details that became part of Halt’s memo. Over time, the first and second encounter were blurred into one in Jim’s memory. The interrogations and hypnotic regression may have contributed to that.
• The only mistake Jim made was the date. He made this mistake while under stress - he thought they were dealing with an aircraft crash. I can imagine he was not that busy with the exact date right then (and his watch may have been ‘in between dates’ at 12:50, which made it difficult for him to read the exact date from his watch).

[AdrianF]

Frank,
You can re write the history books all you like, but it won't change what was written in the reports and how they also correspond with other reports. Jim's notebook and timings are an anomaly which only he can answer.
A best guess at the start time of this investigation, is somewhere between 2.30 and 3.10 am and I see no reason to challenge the established 2.50 am, though I don't blame you for trying.

[Frank]

Jim's notebook and timings are an anomaly which only he can answer.

Of course, Adrian, I fully agree. It’s just that I recently re-read the witness statements for a reply to Ignis and that got me speculating and playing a bit with the timeline. I’m just posting some pieces here hoping that new clues will surface. But ultimately the witnesses themselves are the proper people to solve this, no question about that.

A best guess at the start time of this investigation, is somewhere between 2.30 and 3.10 am and I see no reason to challenge the established 2.50 am

Well, maybe there are reasons to challenge that .. To speculate a bit further:

It appears there are two basic ways to approach the ‘notebook issue’.

A - Jim’s notebook is a genuine document made during the events. This makes Jim’s notebook part of the set of ‘official’ documents, along with the witness statements, Halt’s memo, and the Suffolk police log.

B - The entries in Jim’s notebook were created (much?) later, and he made mistakes in the date and time of the events.


Option A leaves the following deviations:
1 - Why did Jim get the date wrong?
2 - Why do the response notes in Jim’s notebook start at 00:50, while the documents of Burroughs, Chandler, and Buran (plus Halt’s memo) mention approximately 03:00 as the time when Burroughs and Steffens first saw the lights?
3 - Why did Jim note 02:45 as the time of the take-off while the events only started at approximately 03:00 according to the other documents?

Getting the date wrong is a common mistake around midnight, certianly if you are under stress (a possible aircraft crash is not exactly a trivial matter..). So the first deviation can be an understandable mistake under the circumstances.

The second deviation seems more difficult at first sight, because four documents mention another starting time than Jim’s notebook, so it seems to be ‘4 to 1’. However, it is striking that all four documents exactly agree in this respect - they all state the events started at 03:00 - yet all of them also state this is an approximation. Why are all approximations exactly the same? A probable reason for that is a common source. This leaves just a ‘1 to 1’ situation: One common source for an approximate starting time - probably as it was remembered several days later - versus the starting time in Jim’s notebook that was written down at the spot. Which is more likely to be right?

(A related thought that crossed my mind about that: If the events started already at 00:50 it was a little embarrassing that more than three hours had passed before the Suffolk police was warned, and all this time US military men had been chasing an unknown object on British territory (possibly including a period of lost radio contact). So maybe there was a ‘slight preference’ for an estimated starting time that was late in the night, to avoid an embarrassing situation with the British authorities.)

The third deviation may not be a deviation at all if Jim’s starting time was correct. Yet it may also have been caused by EM fields emitted by the object that interfered with Jim’s watch. This is a real and known physical effect acting on the electronics and miniature electronic motors inside a watch. After all, Jim stated in his last interview that his watch was 45 minutes behind after the incident.


If these kinds of explanations sound too farfetched, there is always option B. But this leaves the following questions to be answered:
1 - Why does Jim tell he made his notebook at the spot while in reality he made it (much?) later?
2 - Why did he make his notes appear as if they were written under great stress and difficult circumstances, i.e., why did he make them look as if they were made at the spot?
3 - If he fabricated the notebook for his public performances, why did he copy the (wrong) date but did not copy the (correct) time from Halt’s memo? There was plenty of time for that because many years have passed between the publication of Halt’s memo and the first time Jim’s notebook entered the public domain (the witness statements came later).
4. If he fabricated the notebook for his public performances, why did he put dates and times in there anyway? They can only lead to exposure and do not add anything to the story. Being a trained member of the military police, Jim should have known that.

In other words: Why did he fabricate false evidence and why did he do such a bad job?
• Fame and glory? He already was the most senior officer and most prominent witness to the events, so there was no need for the notebook to get himself into the picture.
• Money? If he wanted to make money with books and films he already could have done so. He could have made even more money by saving his revelations for his books and films instead of giving away the full story in his first public interview.
• Exaggeration? He is described (and comes across) as a sober minded and mature individual that was very reluctant to tell the full story to his superiors, so in his character there is no tendency to exaggerate things at all.
• Credibility? His notebook only undermined his credibility. It would have been much easier to stick with the story in Halt’s memo – that story is already fascinating enough to get all the attention and credibility he would like.

So what is his motive? I have a hard time seeing him sitting in some corner years later fabricating notes as if they were scribbled under ever increasing stress, without any logical motive.


These considerations leave A as the most probable option: Jim’s notebook is as he tells it is – a genuine piece of evidence made at the spot to be treated as one of the official documents. And that leads to the starting time in Jim’s notebook being the most probable starting point to reconstruct a timeline.

[AdrianF]

Getting the date wrong is a common mistake around midnight, certianly if you are under stress (a possible aircraft crash is not exactly a trivial matter..). So the first deviation can be an understandable mistake under the circumstances.

Yep, I think this is a normal human error given the situation.

A - Jim’s notebook is a genuine document made during the events. This makes Jim’s notebook part of the set of ‘official’ documents, along with the witness statements, Halt’s memo, and the Suffolk police log.

B - The entries in Jim’s notebook were created (much?) later, and he made mistakes in the date and time of the events.


Option A leaves the following deviations:
1 - Why did Jim get the date wrong?
2 - Why do the response notes in Jim’s notebook start at 00:50, while the documents of Burroughs, Chandler, and Buran (plus Halt’s memo) mention approximately 03:00 as the time when Burroughs and Steffens first saw the lights?
3 - Why did Jim note 02:45 as the time of the take-off while the events only started at approximately 03:00 according to the other documents?

Well on the face of it, the 3 questions posed here are answered by option B. Perhaps not much later, but probably after the case.

[Frank]

Yes, I also thought about that. Especially after reading:
Buran: I directed SSgt Penniston to take notes of the incident when he came in that morning.

But somehow this does not seem to fit. First of all, I wouldn't expect his notes to start with "A/C Crash", since by then he knew it wasn't a crash.
If he made his notes right after he came in (possibly after Buran asked him to), I wouldn't expect a 2-3 hour mistake in the time.
If he made his notes later (for instance after several days), how did he memorize the symbols? It is very hard to memorize a series of abstract symbols for a long time. And why did he write his notes as if they were scribbled under great stress? I can imagine stress if he wrote them right after the event but not several days later.

[Frank]

Just listened to podcast 'return to rendlesham part 5'.

Most interesting part was Jim's revelation that he told the full story to AFOSI (touching the craft, the markings on the craft, etc.) and was ordered by AFOSI to tell others (a.o. Conrad) the 'simplified story' he put in his (unsigned) witness statement.

But still something doesn't add up! Jim's 'simplified story' (a brief encounter where he got within 50 meters from the object) is backed up by all five original witness statements . They tell a consistent story of a brief encounter where Jim got within 50 meters.

The only witness that backs up Jim's elaborate investigation taking notes in his notebook is Jim himself, and the only document that backs it up is Jim's notebook! So either all five witnesses were in the same conspiracy ordered by AFOSI or Jim had his encounter while he was alone. Which is it ?!

[alive555]

What i want to know is how come only 1 witness touched the craft ? was Jim on his own at the time - highly unlikely !

[Frank]

What i want to know is how come only 1 witness touched the craft ? was Jim on his own at the time - highly unlikely !

I would like to take one step further back - is there a witness who actually touched the craft?

There is nothing in the five original witness statements indicating this. Just read through the first post in this thread and ýou'll see that the story these witness statements tell is about a brief encounter with an object that got back to the farmer's field and disappeared. All five statements agree in this respect and this is also the way John remembers it.

Where does that place Jim's story and his notebook? Jim is the only witness claiming an elaborated investigation, taking pictures, touching the craft and copying the symbols in his notebook. Even John does not remember this. Jim also is the only person holding documented evidence for this investigation - his notebook.

If the starting time in Jim's notebook is correct there was ample time for a second encounter and since Jim is the only witness who seems to remember an elaborate investigation of the craft he probably was alone during this encounter. "Alone" can also mean that the other witnesses were cut out for some reason.

(Of course you could claim that all five witness statements contain a watered down version of the events, but in that case there must have been a coordinated cover-up since the witness statements tell a very consistent story. This coordinated cover-up must have included all five witnesses, i.e., Buran, Chandler, Burroughs, Penniston and Cabansag, plus probably even Halt. Not very likely ..)

[Frank]

To recapitulate:

It all starts with five witness statements that tell a consistent story of unusual lights and a mechanical object that was briefly witnessed from a distance of 50 meters. Two weeks later Halt describes it in his memo as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters across the base and approximately two meters high. He also writes the object was hovering or on legs and that it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared as the patrolmen approached it.

One could say the story stops here, and just has grown over the years. Or not?

Jim possesses a notebook with all kinds of details about the craft. In it, he even recorded the symbols etched onto the craft – symbols that were not visible from a distance of 50 meters. Apparently he has been closer than he reported to Chandler. It's either that, or he deliberately fabricated false evidence.

He first mentions his notebook more than 10 years after the incident, in his first public interview. At that time, Jim also tells he investigated the craft for 45 minutes and even took photographs. He sticks with this story in an official statement and claims that Burroughs was with him all this time (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_press_07/penniston_statement.pdf).

John Burroughs, however, sticks to his own original witness statement and claims he only saw lights for a brief moment and never anything solid!

At least part of Jim’s story came out under hypnotic regression and may not be factual. John Burroughs hints at this in a recent post on this forum. Jim’s investigation of the craft may have only lasted a few minutes (which is enough time to walk around the craft and take about 5 pages of quick notes, including a copy of the symbols etched on the craft), while the hypnotic regression made it appear much longer.

But why doesn’t John remember this investigation? Maybe he was on the ground in a defensive position all this time? Or is there another explanation?

Ed Cabansag wrote to Peter Robbins that someone ‘was missing, but he followed us out’ - Ed later found out he was ‘lost or taken’ (source: LEAG - Peter left out the name of the ‘victim’).

We now have a second source that corroborates this story: Nevels recently stated that on December 27 1980, Englund told him an airman was abducted.

Where do we go from here ..?

[puddlepirate]

Frank

Over the years many of us on this forum have tried the same approach, the factual, reasoned approach based on what the witnesses originally said but it has got us nowhere. We are no further forward now than when we first started. So to answer your question 'where do we go from here?' - the answer in my opinion at least is simply round and round in circles. Every now and then something else, some tidbit of alleged information, will be thrown into the circle but for no other apparent reason than to divert and confuse rather than to take us any nearer to a solution.

It was hoped that when the witnesses joined the forum there could be a breakthrough based on the combined knowledge of those who were there with the specialist knowledge and broad thinking of other contributors but unfortunately this was not to be. In fact, what seems to happen is if someone who obviously has expert knowledge of a particular topic, e.g. geiger counters and radiation, makes a valid contribution another new contributor will suddenly appear to ridicule or undermine that person to the point they usually give up and stop posting. Whether it is the intention of forum 'watchers' to keep an eye on things and should anyone who might pose a real threat pop up, to then step in and deter them to the point where they go away, I have no idea but it seems to be a fairly regular occurence.

This forum provides an outlet for enteraining discussion but that is about all. In terms of being a tool for aiding serious research into the incident it is of very limited, if any, real value. On a positive note, there are is a whole raft of publicly available, reliable information - and not just on the internet - that if you persevere you will find.

[puddlepirate]

Frank - further to your most useful review the one and only undisputed fact (although numbers vary) is that a sizeable squad of USAF personnel including at least one senior officer, went off base and drove in convoy from RAF Bentwaters to Rendlesham Forest in the middle of the night during the Christmas holiday. They took with them lightalls and other equipment, apparently to look for something in the forest. That has never been disputed nor, other than for the actual number of persons, has that basic fact been changed. So irrespective of it being odd lights, the lighthouse, aliens, alien craft or anything else, something must have happened that required the USAF to deal with and for such numbers to be involved it had to be something fairly serious. If it had been of no consequence the local constabularly would have dealt with it. Had it been a direct airborne threat to the UK, the RAF (and if necessary the Army and possibly even the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy), would have dealt with it.

[John Burroughs]

Frank and Puddle
There was only 3 of us who went out into the Forrest and 3 of us came back! The BS Robbins and Warren tried to spin into the first night is just that BS. Larry went as far as telling Bruni he was hiding behind the trees while Jim and I approached what ever it was. He even has said that it all happened on one night. The fact is I was the one Nevils was talking about I got close too whatever it was twice. Both times I may have been had some kind of encounter according to those who were there! I say again I may have had some kind of encounter twice according to those who were there! Two very interesting things stand out England told Nevils about our encounter less than 48 hours after it happened and the Air Force thought I was talking about my second encounter with Bustinza after Larry started talking. Puddle yes it has been stated along with the police the fire brigade did respond out on the first night. Also Jim will fill in what he has to say in December!

[larry warren]

John, you got a tape of me saying i was behind trees? robbins and i never BS, you got alot to say bro on the net ! well see how well you do with your " message to the world" in december! right.
ive never seen so much passive/agressive BS from you guys than you have layed up to date! your like hostages that identify with there captors, and miss the big picture!! over and over dude ! if i were you , id Really get a grip on what i type.
as for spin, its you dude that spins my stuff all the time, and dont quote that damn book by georgina,as ive delt with what she wrote years ago, and why she wrote it !sadly im startin to see thru your agenda like a whores cheep nightie! later.

[John Burroughs]

Larry
Glad you could pop in again in knew that would get your attention. There is no passive /agressive stuff going on! We allready went through the Bruni stuff before and need I say what came out is not what you have been trying to sell.You don't seem to want to answer a simple question did you witness any of the encounter Adrian and I had? And the only agenda I have is the truth Larry nothing else!

[John Burroughs]

Thats what I figured! Im sure you will again rant and rave then go into people are just trying to split us up! None of thats true Larry over and over go on about how you have been misquoted by all different kinds of people. Linda has a interview she did with you on tape and on it you said you were just covering for Adrian that it was his story and you were just covering for him. You have now said your not sure what is fact and what was planted. You were able to jump in tonight on what i said about you and Robbins feeding BS into the first night which you was not your night. Awhile back and again yesterday and tonight I asked you a simple question did you witness what happened to Adrian and I. No answer why is that Larry what is my agenda?