30th Anniversary Conference discussion/Binary Code [merged]

[Observer]

DP

Much of what i'm about to say was posted by me a long time ago, most of which fell on deaf ears at the time.

One of my friends who I still see today is an ex RAF Police Dog handler and he was pals with the Officer [I think a Captain] in charge of the canine section at BW. They would go to the pub and generally hang out. The Captain said to my ex RAF pal that he had heard that some thing big was going down over the Christmas holidays and it was going to scare the shit out of the young guys.
Secondly, my ex RAF pal used to walk his dogs [2 border Collies] in Rendlesham forest and he walked them over the Christmas holidays. He said nothing was unusual or out of place in the forest while he was there during the day.

My pal also said that he heard after Christmas that there was some goings on in the forest so about 10 days later he and his son went in the forest to have a look around. This is when he found a USAF issue torch/flash light with a red lens filter fitted in the under growth along side a logging track. On further investigation, it was an issue to the 67th special ops guys for map reading at night.

My two ARRS pals have opposing views, one says nothing happened of any importance and the other said if some thing did happen, he had not heard, but the forest tracks were favourite places for night time shagging in the backs of cars by airmen and Officers. I hope this helps a little as I'm only repeating what I was told.

Obs

[Cards]

What a sad turn of events. A month ago, I thought this was arguably the most compelling UFO case of all-time. Now? Well, now the story has degraded to nothing more than a farce.

Penniston originally reports what? That he saw a UFO and didn't get close to it?

...then he changes his story to say that he approached the craft, circled it, spent a considerable amount of time around it -- even touched it. And yet, the guy that was there with him doesn't remember anything remotely close to this.

...and now it's revealed that binary-encoded messages were telepathically delivered to his brain? Binary code that doesn't even translate to anything worthwhile without manipulating it!?

At some point being open-minded completely clashes with common sense -- this is one of those times. I don't know what Jim Penniston's intentions are, but it's certainly not to convey the truth. Maybe he's a charlatan that's trying to capitalize on the events, or maybe he's just delusional and thrives off of the attention.

I can't wait for the movie. I wonder how much more revisionist history will have taken place by then. I'm sure at that point, Penniston will have claimed to have returned to the aliens' home planet, at which point he was provided equations and formulas that reveal the secrets behind intergalactic travel.

Seriously though... I want to repeat this one more time: less than a month ago I was completely enthralled and captivated by this. Now I'm appalled.

[Cards]

One thing I want to add: it's very clear that something bizarre happened that night. I'm still open to the idea that something paranormal happened that night. It's just, quite frankly, I think that Jim Penniston has destroyed his credibility.

[Observer]

So was I completely captivated and enthralled with the RFI a few years ago and I along with a few others were at the birth of this forum. Certain turn of events over time have exposed some of the myths that have grown up with this case.
Like all good stories, it's had a pretty large portion of embellishment.
If you read all the original statements and notes by the main witnesses, all they ever said was that lights were seen.

Obs

[Biffer]

If you read all the original statements and notes by the main witnesses, all they ever said was that lights were seen.
Obs

That's true, Obs, but they also said from the start that the original statements were 'watered down' versions. Given their status at the time, this was their natural reaction to having to report something that could question their sanity and competency (and these were made before Col.Halt's recorded testimony). It's a very human thing to put jobs and pensions before truth and accuracy when they must have thought no one would believe them anyway.

Biffer

PS
Long time no see, mate. How's it going?

[puddlepirate]

As Obs says... all that was seen on night one was odd lights. Nothing more. Another odd fact is that Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs used odd sheets of paper for their statements but the two who remained on base (Buran and Steffans) used the official USAF form to type, sign then date their reports. Given they were all professional security policemen well used to the protocols of making statements, then why didn't they also use the official USAF form 1169 as the others had? Also, as the squad commander who led the patrol off base after confirming the sighting of 'odd lights', surely Penniston would have been required to submit an official report but it would have been an official report, not something handwritten on a odd sheet of paper and not signed nor dated. To my mind this suggests Penniston did indeed submit an official report which is now held as a classified document in an archive somewhere, while the statement(s) we are familiar with was drafted for public consumption.

[Observer]

Hi Biffer

I'm good, Puddle makes some valid points and its worth keeping them in mind. As far as the statements go, it's possible that they were being 'safe' with their reports. Halts statement to the MOD was certainly watered down before it was sent. In fact why send one at all, if nothing happened then why send it. Its hardly worth sending a memo about lights seen, not the event of the century is it.

Obs

[arvd]

Jim has made a proper cock up !. What's happened to Jim John and Lazzers anyway ?. Not heard from them 3 in a while.

[Ignis Fatuus]

In fact why send one at all, if nothing happened then why send it. Its hardly worth sending a memo about lights seen, not the event of the century is it.

Wouldn't there be an obligation on the USAF's behalf to explain the off-base maneuvers? Fudge the date - send it late - hope it disappears.

[Observer]

Your probably right.

Obs

[IanR]

I'm sure the History channel wouldn't want people ruining their credibility, after all history is supposed to be based on facts right?

Yeah, right. Just like The UFO Hunters.

Programmes like this are intended for entertainment only. You can read an amusing inside view of how programmes like this are made starting on page 11 of the latest issue of the online UFO magazine SUNlite
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_1.pdf

Ian

[Observer]

Its all about copy right and product protection. The history channel obviously think there is some more mileage in the RFI so all they are doing is protecting an asset. Thats show biz for you.

Obs

[Observer]

Rendle

If you have followed the RFI from day one when the forum started as I have, you will notice how dramatically their stories have changed over time. Quite frankly, they have done themselves no favours at all in the credibility stakes.

I concede completely that some thing happened in that forest over 2 if not 3 nights, but it weren't no space ship, much more down to earth than that.

Obs

[Ignis Fatuus]

Hopefully somebody on the inside gets a call from their conscience orrrrr a publicist.
I wouldn't pay a cent for '010 We are Here, You are Special 101...but "Rendlesham Forest - Our Dirty Little Secret'...that would be a different story.

[Observer]

Its worth considering that many of these out landish claims by our main witnesses could be the result of their de brief and possibly drug induced brain wash. At least they all said they got severely treated and they think they were drugged.
So its perfectly possible that these weird happenings were in their brains but not in reality. These methods were quite common during the cold war for dissidents and spys etc. on all sides.
If you notice Halt never mentions his de brief or any harsh treatment, well he was an Officer wasn't he? I think Halt was dealt with in a far more suble way, they fast tracked his promotion to get him out of there and he went to an AFB in Korea.
Obs

[Biffer]

Wouldn't there be an obligation on the USAF's behalf to explain the off-base maneuvers? Fudge the date - send it late - hope it disappears.

Ignis, the whole question of US accountability to British authorities is a controversial subject in itself, and something of a political 'hot potato'. Under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act, you're probably correct, but then, the VFA has always been a legal 'grey area'. Historically, the Americans have proven to be a law unto themselves with regard to their UK bases.

For anyone interested in the wider issues of US/UK relations, as they pertain to US forces based in the UK, I highly recommend Duncan Campbell's book, 'The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: American Military Power in Britain'. To quote just one example from the book; in 1956 an American B-47 bomber crashed at RAF Lakenheath, setting fire to a bunker containing nuclear weapons. Because of the way they were stored, there was no danger of nuclear explosion. However, the bombs also contained several tonnes of conventional high-explosive (used as triggers), which if it exploded in the heat, would throw around 60kg of plutonium high into the air and contaminate a huge area around the base. The Americans immediately evacuated all non-essential personnel from Lakenheath and flashed a warning to Mildenhall, 5-miles away. Local British police and civilians were not warned by the Americans.

Details of this accident only became public in 1979. In December 1980, the Pentagon issued an official list of 21 accidents involving nuclear weapons on British soil between 1947 and 1964. In 1981, five new accidents were 'discovered' by Pentagon officials. That's what they've publicly admitted to, so far. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that the real figure might likely be twice as long. By the way, all of these incidents were successfully kept from public knowledge for all that time without recourse to 'UFO' cover stories.

With regard to the Rendlesham Incident then (whatever is was); if the Americans didn't deem it necessary to inform British authorities about serious accidents involving nuclear weapons, would they really do so about 'some lights in the woods', or a' hoax', or a 'drunken drugs party'? In 'Skycrash' (Randles, Butler & Street), Halt tells of being unsure whether he should contact the (British) MoD about his experience in the woods. He was advised to talk with the British liaison officer, Sqd.Ldr.Moreland, RAF, who 'suggested' Halt send his now infamous memo. Note that Halt (and his superiors) evidently believed that contacting the MoD was optional, not obligatory, and Moreland certainly couldn't order him to do it - he could only make 'suggestions'.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this suggests to me that what Halt and his team encountered was so 'unusual' (more so even than an accident with a nuclear weapon!), that he felt compelled to inform British defence authorities.

Biffer

[IanR]

Not sure how many of you saw this, but the latest issue of the online UFO magazine SUNlite contains some thoughts by Peter Brookesmith on this very issue of the legality of Halt's expedition:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_1.pdf
Peter quotes Col Sam Morgan, who succeeded Ted Conrad as Halt’s boss: “Halt was over reacting when on the scene and it was recorded on a pocket tape recorder. I got this tape and... [it] started a story which, for Halt, shined a light on him. He could have addressed the facts or he could have inflated the story. He chose to inflate the story. Soon the story was much bigger than he expected and he does not now have a graceful way out."

So Halt is now the UFO Colonel:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=872&p=8280&hilit=UFO+colonel#p8280

BTW, the latest version now comes with a bonus Authentic Phrase: "Which race landed at Roswell?"

Ian

[Observer]

Biffa

Good post, most of which I was aware of. The USAF had a rather nasty mishap with a nuke in the Greenham Common area.

According to my research the USAF have had over 68 incidents with NW since 1947 and they are only the ones they have put their hands up to. The worst being the 'alleged' detonation of a H bomb on a B-36 that crashed in the North Pacific which is a Russian claim.

According to a recent BBC country file documentary, the question was brought up about USAF bases in the UK and today is a bit different from 1980. They no longer have US sovereignty on base land and they are now fully under British law and order off base and subject to our law courts. They have also lost their rights as sitting tennents and can be evicted with fair notice. Under revised NATO rules, they not only have to disclose the types of weapons in stock but permission from the host country is required. However, your point about all this in 1980 is quite relevent as they were a bunch of paranoid fools and still are, but then so is Russia and now China, Europe and in particular GB is far more laid back.

Obs

[Observer]

Ian

Your last post just about sums it up.
My pal who was in the ARRS and stationed at Woody as a flight line chief told me that Halt broke all the rules. He put his bosses in awkward positions including Sqd Ld Moreland and has now backed himself into an unescapable corner. He should have stopped digging the hole years ago.
As for what happened, well not much as it happens but enough to fool Halt and his merry men who totally over reacted to a situation they couldn't quite put their fingers on.

Obs

[Biffer]

Not sure how many of you saw this, but the latest issue of the online UFO magazine SUNlite contains some thoughts by Peter Brookesmith on this very issue of the legality of Halt's expedition:

Thanks for the link, Ian. Unfortunately, I found Peter Brookesmith’s article to be little more than a 2nd-hand character assassination of Halt, which is the fashionable approach nowadays amongst some pundits. Not your fault, of course, and these comments are aimed at PB, not you.

Halt may not have been universally liked by everyone under his command (name me an officer who is), but if his superiors thought him incompetent in any way – trust me – he would not have been given responsibility for nuclear weapon security.

In the context of the Rendlesham Incident, Halt’s character and style of man-management is somewhat irrelevant. Brookeshmith paints a picture of a ‘Walter Mitty’ character, taking his men out to the woods on a personal whim in search of glory and adventure. He questions whether Halt was actually on-duty that night (presumably because he was attending a Christmas party), and even asserts that Halt and his men could be charged with trespass and damage for being in the woods at all. This displays both a charming naivety concerning military protocol and a glaring ignorance of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952.

At times of crisis, and/or when a superior officer gives you an order, everyone in the military is ‘on-duty’, whether they’re technically on-leave and wearing civilian clothes or not. The Christmas party Halt was attending was an official gathering and he would have been both ‘on-duty’ and in uniform. He didn’t just decide unilaterally to take his men for a ‘jolly’ in the woods. He was responding to a report brought to him by a junior officer – a report of incidents which Halt himself insisted had to be officially logged. As such, it was his duty to take action upon them. Let’s not forget that no one had any real idea what the original reports (Penniston’s, etc.) represented. Halt was, quite rightly, taking no chances with the security of the weapons under his charge. Perhaps another officer would have delegated this task to someone further down the chain of command, but that was not Halt’s way of doing things. In time of war, ‘leading from the front’ wins praise and creates heroes – but not in peacetime it seems.

As for Brookesmith’s risible comments about the illegality of Halt’s actions in going off-base; whilst a strict legal interpretation of the VFA might suggest that American jurisdiction ends at the perimeter fence, it also recognizes that US forces are duty-bound to investigate any potential threats to their security, both on- and off-base. Indeed, in reality, most of the battles fought by USAF security forces in wartime would have taken place far outside the base perimeter; in the case of Bentwaters/Woodbridge, probably on the Suffolk coast. Britain's MoD were fully aware of this.

Trespass and damage? Oh, please … The London Agreement on the Status of Forces, signed in June, 1951, gave immunity to NATO ‘foreign forces’ from prosecution or the risk of civil proceedings in a ‘receiving state’ if they were in the process of carrying out ‘official duties’. This statute was incorporated into the VFA the following year, exempting all US service personnel being tried for any offence in British courts, if the offence (or non-criminal injury or damage), “arose out of, or in the course of, duty as a member of US forces.” (see, Campbell; ‘The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier’; pp.300-301). Halt’s party were USAF security policemen investigating an official report – not a private ‘UFO spotters club’. Members of this forum might not see eye-to-eye on everything, but can we all at least agree that Halt and his men were on ‘official duty’?

To my knowledge there was only one violation of the VFA during the 1-3 nights of the Rendlesham Incident, and that was the carrying of loaded weapons off-base. However, under the circumstances of ‘just cause’ and ‘perceived threat’, I doubt if anyone at the MoD would have worried about that. As security policemen, Penniston and Burroughs were certainly aware of the legislation regarding firearms. From their earliest statements they were always careful to say that personal weapons were left at East Gate. This stance was upheld in subsequent interviews and film appearances. We now know, from what was said during the forest ‘tours’ at the Re-Union Conference, that whist their M16 rifles might have been ‘turned in’, loaded sidearms were taken into the woods. Given the same set of conditions that night, I can’t say I wouldn’t have done likewise.

In closing, then, I find articles like PB’s distasteful and unhelpful. They bring nothing of value to the case; are written with a ‘tabloid’ mentality befitting the hear-say gossip-mongering they peddle; and come perilously close to libel, in my opinion. Can we please stop treating Halt, Penniston, Borroughs, Warren, et al, as if we were in a court of law and they are the accused? These men are witnesses. They were there, and we were not. They had the courage to report what they saw in the face of certain scorn and ridicule. We should match that courage with a spirit of open-minded inquiry and keep our unproven accusations and petty jealousies to ourselves.

Biffer