It must have been ET

[alive555]

One thing I have noticed which seriously disconcerts me about this whole affair is the lack of any recognition by and on behalf of any of the key witnesses that the craft seen at Rendlesham was anything other than Extraterrestrial in nature.

Are the witnesses unsure ? I mean come on please !

what craft known to man is;

1. triangular and able to hover
2. completely silent
3. has the markings described by Jim
4. has the incredible flight characteristics seen by multiple witnesses
5. flies in the middle of the night unnanounced right next to a nuclear base without the knowledge of any the us or british forces ?
6. keeps appearing for 3 consecutive nights, unnannounced and uninvited.
7. glows and pulses
8. exudes some form of electromagnetic force

either it was a hoax or it was ET , nothing in between. The sooner the witnesses face up to this the more credible they will be.

[stephan]

I also support the ET hypothesis. However, as we have no physical proof or as the alleged video footages made on the 3rd night (as decribed by Larry Warren) have not emerged yet, we also have to consider other possibilities among which there are:

- psychotronic weapons
- cover up story for a nuclear incident for example
- black projects (secret development of highly sophisticated aircrafts)

according to the available data (i.e. witness statements and observations) everything points to ET. The probabilities for the other possibilities are - imo - rather low. Charles Halt himself said that the lights and crafts were extraterrestrial in origin. Larry Warren even saw ''beings'' that were NOT human. James Penniston saw symbols on the craft which resembled nothing he knew. Allegedly nukes were affected ... the list goes on. If it wasn't ET I would go for psychotronic weapons but it's very hard to imagine that this would have been the case here with such detailled descriptions of the crafts and their behavior.

[IanR]

either it was a hoax or it was ET , nothing in between. The sooner the witnesses face up to this the more credible they will be.

Well, Penniston has been very specific that what he encountered was not ET. They were, he says, time travellers from our future come back to get DNA samples to help them reproduce. He knows this (he says) because the occupants of the craft communicated with him telepathically.

So, for you, does that leave hoax?

[Frank]

I think the men are right when they state it was an unknown and nothing more can be said with certainty. It would potentially harm their credibility if they start to ‘push’ one explanation or the other. I think Ian's post above nicely illustrates how such speculation immediately turns against them.

ET is just a hypothesis, and I fully agree that it is a very probable hypothesis if Jim’s detailed description of his close encounter is factual. This, however, is still not a well established fact though I certainly would want it to be. But if you look at the evidence objectively you cannot escape the conclusion that there are some important inconsistencies that need to be solved. (More in this thread: http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=812)

From the interviews with Jim that I’ve heard, it seems he has some personal aversion against “little green men”. He once said he just doesn’t believe in aliens. I can imagine that makes it harder to accept the ET hypothesis as a probable explanation.

John has been looking in the direction of a military experiment/event for a long time, but has been unsuccessful so far. Many members of this forum have been looking in that direction, too. Jacques Vallee, a French UFO researcher, once said it was probably some psychological experiment by the military where the men were given some ‘stimulus’ and the effect of this stimulus was thoroughly investigated afterwards by questioning them with truth serum.

For both Jim and John also some information surfaced during their hypnotic regressions pointing to time travelers or at least some kind of feeling or message that ‘they were us’. (More about that here: http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=792.) This made them speculate about the time traveller hypothesis for a while (and they were very clear that they were speculating at that point).

So what it was remains an enigma … though I am one of the people in favor of the ET hypothesis (see http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=784).

[stephan]

Well, Penniston has been very specific that what he encountered was not ET. They were, he says, time travellers from our future come back to get DNA samples to help them reproduce. He knows this (he says) because the occupants of the craft communicated with him telepathically.

So, for you, does that leave hoax?

Dear Ian,

Apart from the possibility that Jim might have 'invented' (part of) his story based on a regression hypnosis would this mere factor of Jim being an unreliable source mean that every other witness is making up things, too ? Hence your rhetorical question in regard to the incident being a hoax may be a bit quick

[Deep Purple]

I cant say its not ET
But you cannot rule out a stage managed disinformation campaign to hide secret trials , technology.
They did this in the US. A good read is "Mirage Men"
So I feel until things like this are eliminated its a bit to hasty to draw conclusions.
Its a bit like watching a " Penn & Teller" illusion your mind says it must be this---- but it isnt-- its a trick
This would be the greatest story of the recent world---- we need the best proof

[puddlepirate]

The problem is the lack of hard evidence for either. The US and indeed even the UK (albeit less so today) are known to run many deep black projects and in the US the security around those projects can verge on paranoia. Many of those highly classified projects involve US/UK collaboration where aircraft under testing or development are known to visit UK bases such as Macrahanish and Boscombe Down. Yet both governments will vehemntly deny the existence of such craft - denials that are maintained for many years. Ditto accidents with some types of weapons. No matter how much people might protest and demand to know, there are some things that no government could ever admit to. Things that must remain hidden for whatever reason, where those who dig too deeply are warned off and if they fail to heed the warnings, they are dealt with in a manner deemed appropriate to the risk.

When balancing black projects and extreme weapons against what is known about ET and ET technologies, then the scales have to tip in favour of a black project or an incident with a weapon or something the USAF was doing elsewhere that by accident of almightly cock-up, ended at Rendlesham. There is hard proof that black projects exist but almost none to support the existence of ET - at least on Earth. SETI has been searching the skies for years and have found nothing. The US had Project Blue Book and the Soviets had their military on the case - neither of them found anything worth mentioning. Nor did the UK for that matter. There have been various flaps, e.g. Belgium and more recently strange craft over China and there have been famous events such as Tunguska but still no hard evidence of ET Therefore, the probability of the RFI being an ET event are very low.

[stephan]

... the probability of the RFI being an ET event are very low.

... IF you make the following assumptions:

- the witnesses are liars (they insist it could not have been man-made aircraft)
- such secret technologies already exist since the end of WWII
- if ET is here then they would want to make contact on a broad scale with mankind
- all other incidents that involved nuclear weapons were hoaxes, too

but if you don't the probability of secret (manned ?) aircrafts showing characteristics such as:

- doing sharp angle turns at very high speed as if inertia was inexistent
- vanishing within ''a blink of an eye''
- exploding into multiple objects
- hovering and moving silently

is IMO rather low. Please keep in mind that doing such rapid momevents would virtually tear apart the human body due to the enormous accelerations unless someone found out how to overcome inertia (like the inertia dampers in Star Trek ) ... but then again I wonder why we are still travelling around in space with the Space shuttles...

[AdrianF]

But you cannot rule out a stage managed disinformation campaign to hide secret trials , technology.
They did this in the US. A good read is "Mirage Men"
So I feel until things like this are eliminated its a bit to hasty to draw conclusions.

I wonder how much of this story has been happily encouraged, in order to cloud over what went on inside the fence?

[AdrianF]

Are the witnesses unsure ? I mean come on please !

Some of them are. There could be a number of explanations for each sighting over the 3 days and optical effects, hoaxes, glowing animals and satellites, still haven't really been discounted completely.

[stephan]

glowing animals, Adrian ?

[puddlepirate]

I would have thought any starship commander smart enough to complete a voyage into our solar system and land on Earth totally undetected would be smart enough not to land his craft in a densly wooded forest in the middle of the night.....

[stephan]

I would have thought any starship commander smart enough to complete a voyage into our solar system and land on Earth totally undetected would be smart enough not to land his craft in a densly wooded forest in the middle of the night.....

... close to the biggest NATO nuclear weapons arsenal at the time. Yep, to convey the 'message', show who's 'in charge' but leave without making too much ''noise''

[puddlepirate]

. close to the biggest NATO nuclear weapons arsenal at the time. Yep, to convey the 'message', show who's 'in charge' but leave without making too much ''noise''

and the point of an unannounced, silent visit where the intruder leaves without too much "noise" would be?....Who did 'they' communicate this obviously hugely important (or why did they bother?) 'message' to? A chance meeting with a couple of bored US airman stuck with an 'all night on'......Hardly a resounding success! Sorry but ET just doesn't cut it. Not at Rendlesham.

[Daniel]

The points laid out in the original post could easily describe the traits for any military Black Project, that still isn't public knowledge. I've seen an aircraft that ticks the boxes for numbers 2 and 8, and could partially tick numbers 1 and 4. However this was in 1994 and what I saw couldn't be described as doing anything compared to what was observed in 1980. My opinion is that the military knows much more about Anti-gravity than they say. But I still can't see a military Black Project craft coming from a NATO country, or there would have probably been no encounters in the forest. However there are so many possibilities and the choices of it only being a hoax or ET isn't anywhere near the top of my list.

[stephan]

and the point of an unannounced, silent visit where the intruder leaves without too much "noise" would be?....Who did 'they' communicate this obviously hugely important (or why did they bother?) 'message' to? A chance meeting with a couple of bored US airman stuck with an 'all night on'......Hardly a resounding success! Sorry but ET just doesn't cut it. Not at Rendlesham.

seen as a single event I would agree, wouldn't make too much sense unless they had deactivated nukes and talked to the military in some way. But if you take other incidents into consideration and there are allegedly many of them throughout the last 65 years the whole thing becomes a different - almost a political - issue. The questions you ask are important ones and I think they could be answered if there was no secrecy. Halt certainly wasn't a bored airman but the deputy commander of the base. According to some witnesses General Gabriel and other high ranking guys were involved as well. But the secrecy prevents that more details come to light. As for the success: the cold war is over, more or less, isn't it ? How can we be sure that this was only based on 'reason' on the part of politicians ? You might also take a look at the UFOs and nukes conference where some other similar incidents were discussed.

[puddlepirate]

One of the many problems that inhibit research into what really happened at Rendlesham is that it was a military event, led on UK sovereign terroritory by the USAF. The very fact it was US led is revealing in itself. The military has rules that govern what personnel are or are not allowed to discuss in public places. Similarly those very same rules dictate who, within any given military environment, is allowed access to certain information. A high security clearance does not mean an individual is informed about everthing. It only means they have access to various levels of information as required by their role. Therefore, the witnesses and even the base commander would not necessarily know what led to the events in the forest.

The world in 1980 was a much different place to what it is now and you really had to be there to fully understand how life was back then. Many things involving the military, the Cold War and so forth were a given and apart from organisations such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Greenham Common 'wimmin', most people just got on with it. It was accepted on both sides of the Iron Curtain that stuff happened, governments had secrets and so on and where necessary, certain events would be portrayed in a way that would gain maximum advantage over the other side. Although it sounds ridiculous now, even what soldiers, sailors and airmen ate was considered classified - not that anyone really worried about that too much. The reason was simple. If the enemy knew our guys were well fed then it could be assumed they would be fit and ready to fight.

Such information can be used to pyschological advantage - even today. One only has to look on the internet to see images of the fantastic range of food allegedly available to US troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Piles of fruit, gleaming mess halls, a fabulous range of food. If an Afghan goat herder being encouraged to join the Taliban where he or she would most likely have to live in a cave, exist on meagre rations then fight with an old AK47 or dodgy missile launcher sees those images he or she is probably going to stop and think 'Heck, perhaps I should join the other lot! Just look at what they've got. If they can spend all that money feeding their men then what on earth must their weapons be like?'. The fact that in reality such luxuries might not actually be available to the average squaddie or GI Joe is immaterial. It's the image and psychological advantage that counts.

When trying to resolve what happened at Rendlesham, perhaps it's the image and integrity of the USAF that remains important and protecting that image and integrity could be one of the key drivers behind the story as we know it. It could be that if whatever happened at the twin bases were ever to become public knowledge, irrespective of it being inside or outside the wire and if and as a consequnce of that, the US and those who serve their country were made to look weak or ridiculous, then what happened will never be revealed. Not until sufficient time had elapsed to put the event beyond living memory. The downside is that all of us, researchers and witnesses, are trapped in a classic Catch 22. The Cold War - as it was - is long gone. The Berlin Wall has been demolished and several eastern European states who were once part of the Soviet Bloc, are now part of the EU. But some things still remain - Russia is still a major miltary power, China is not far behind. The only other big player is the US - would it do anyone any good to learn that (assuming an inside the wire event and a hypothetical scenario) the USAF is so ill disciplined or drug addled that they would be a walk-over in any sizeable conflict? Iran and others would be ecstatic to learn the world's biggest super power was defended by a bunch of incomptent, drug addicted morons who ignored any order given to them and would rather sit on their butts, scoffing a KFC washed down with a cool Bud, than pay attention to businss.

Further to that, no-one is accusing anyone of telling lies. It is simply the nature of the military beast that in some instances being economical with the truth and choosing words very carefully, is absolutely essential to maintain the security of a project, a base, a service or a nation. Sometimes it is necessary to divert attention by creating a cover story. After Gary Powers' U2 was shot down the US agreed not to overfly the Soviet Union. They didn't. But what was not widely known at the time was that British pilots operating U2 aircraft from USAF bases in Turkey took on the job. Thus if one of the Brits had been shot down, the US could claim they had honoured the agreement. The US wouldn't be lying, just economical with the truth.

To make matters worse, since 1980 the UFO phenomenon - and there are many sightings around the globe that cannot be readily explained - has been hijacked by a few who see it as an opportunity to make a fast buck and get their name in lights. The actions of these few has done little other than to bring the study of UFOs into disrepute and deter serious academics and bona fide researchers from becoming openly involved in ufology.

The point of this lengthy diatribe? The point is don't take things at face value because when it comes to governments and the military things are seldom what they seem. Look behind and to the side because you can bet your bottom dollar that when they've got you looking in one direction, they'll do everything they can to keep you looking in that direction. The only constraints are:

Do I really need to know?
What will I do with that knowledge?
What are the consequences of revealing that knowledge to others?

[alive555]

couple more points guys;

1. Why is it that in most of the really credible ufo sightings (rendlesham, belgian ufo case, arizona), the huge number of truly independent credible witness with nothing to gain all report VERY similar things ie round or triangular craft, silent engine , ability to hover, incredible performance truly out of this world etc. They dont report flying cabbages, bouncing ballon craft or pulsing water !! i mean come on guys think about this....how many really serious ufo cases report craft different from above ? answer none. If these reports are correct they are ET, as no country possesses anything even approaching this technology.
2. If rendlesham wasnt ET then why doesnt the owner of the technology use it ? i mean if any country had this technology you wouldnt need oil for power, electricity grid etc, and you could annihilate any opponent in the blink of an eye etc. iraq and afghanistan anyone ... .........
.......Get real NO ONE HAS THIS TECHNOLOGY , and it would probably take another 1000 years plus or so for us to get there too.

[puddlepirate]

Who would have believed that circa 1956 the UK was developing a fighter aircraft that could hover? Who, in 1963/4 would ever have believed that a fighter that could hover was actually flying - not in service yet - but flying? Then in 1968 the Harrier jump jet comes into service with the RAF. What about the AVRO (taken from A V Roe - another Brit company) car developed in Canada then sold to the US? Who would have thought that the US could build an aircraft invisible (or at least mostly invisible) to radar and keep it secret for almost 10 years? How about the unmanned, armed drones now being flown over Iraq and Afghanistan by guys seated at a console in the US? Look at the stuff Germany was developing in WW2 and some of it used to put the US into space. Just because the public doesn't know, it doesn't mean such technology doesn't exist. And if such technology does exist it doesn't mean it is flown by a pilot in the cockpit.

[stephan]

puddle, what you say sounds all reasonable. However, the question is, why tell a story at all ? Because one man, Larry Warren, was the whistleblower ? I mean, if something happened there that would have damaged the AF's image if made public why tell a story at all ? As far as I know it wasn't such a big ''event'' that civilian witnesses or even the media took too much notice of it.

I'll tell ya what. My opinion now is that some extraordinary (out of this world) event took place. One witness blew the whistle (Larry) and after a while - some of the other witnesses thought they'd also have something to say. In other words, they jumped on the UFO bandwagon, trying to get a piece of the action as well. Not necessarily in the sense that they wanted to make a living with it. But let's be honest guys. If this was ET, ie. if this was a truly historic event, wouldn't you also be proud to be part of it ? And wouldn't you also be jealous of anyone who ''broke the silence'' first when this was a top secret matter ? When the MoD and the AF said ''it didn't happen'' (I think it was Jim who was told that by them) they felt save enough to go public as well and to try and earn as much recognition as they could. Even today they are at odds like little kids about who saw what and when. And I think you can even see the military hierachy here: Larry, who was ''just'' an airman and hence he must have misinterpreted stuff or been on drugs, Jim who was sergeant and therefore ''deserves'' a bit more credibility and finally Halt who stays in the background when it comes to public discussions on a forum but who'll always take the lead at important meetings like the last press conference...

... but that's exactly what I would expect! They experienced something quite extraordinary, something that they know hasn't happened to anyone else on the planet but something that is probably of high importance for the whole of mankind and - being handicapped by military restrictions - betimes compete like a bunch of pubescent youngsters in their struggle for recognition. And don't forget about the sceptics who readily join the struggle as well

okay, that may be a bit exaggerated but my point is that even if they may try to make some money with that stuff - and who wouldn't btw - it's not only about that. It's also about them feeling convinced to have experienced something so extraordinary that it is worth for them to get through all this trouble (criticism and denial) they are facing. They don't negate each other but there's some competition among them which is good as it keeps this case alive. The big problem is that neither ET nor those who know a bit more come forward and tell THEIR versions. Both ''parties'' have good reasons not to do so. ET: non-involvement, ''They'': loss of power and total loss of reputation.