Skip Buran's Comments & Introduction [Merged]

[Admin]

In reponse to a post about the Facebook group on the main site:

Yeah, I was involved the first night. No calls for help, no hysteria, no report of an actual object, nothing like that in the statements. The real justice would be to thoroughly debunk this non-event.

To which I replied:

If you were involved and feel the entire incident was a “non-event, feel free to join our forum and set the record straight. I’m sure Jim Penniston and John Burroughs would be interested to hear from you.

“… no report of an actual object, nothing like that in the statements.”

We have the original statements and they show otherwise.

Penniston’s USAF witness statement mentions an “object” which is “definitely mechanical in nature”.
Buran’s witness statement states: “They appeared to get very close to the lights, and at one point SSgt Penniston stated that it was a definite mechanical object.”
Chandler’s witness statement states: “On one occasion Penniston relayed that he was close enough to the object to determine it was definitely a mechanical object.”

Any thoughts? Perhaps Skip will join up and enlighten us?

[Frank]

Nice to hear that Skip Buran has found this website! Hopefully he'll join the discussion, or make some sort of statement.

Skip Buran was not at the spot, but maybe he could tell us about the alleged period of lost radio contact?

[stephan]

I think the most mysterious passage in Buran's original statement is this (emphasis mine):

SSgt Penniston reported getting near the ''object'' and then all of a sudden said they had gone past it and were looking at a marker beacon that was in the same general direction as the other lights. I [Lt. Buran] asked him, through SSgt Coffey, if he could have been mistaken, to which Penniston replied that had I [Buran] seen the other lights I would know the difference. SSgt Penniston seemed somewhat agitated at this point.
They continued to look further, to no avail.

the questions that come to mind are: WHY did they simply go past it ? That almost sounds like they ignored it after they had seen what it actually was.

2nd question would be: it seem that those lights were totally different from the beacon. But in what way ? If they had been so different then why were they obviously not worthy of further investigation ? Hypothetically speaking, perhaps Jim realized the true nature of the lights and did not want to appear as a fool - he had reported ''strange lights'' after all. So when he came back only to be ''interrogated'' by Buran he exaggerated a bit:

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 the time.

Obviously Buran felt a need to evaluate Jim's behavior though:

I would like to state at this time that SSgt Penniston is a totally reliable and mature individual. He was not overly excited, nor do I think he is subject to overreaction or misinterpretation of circumstances.

This way Jim would have killed two birds with one stone: on the one hand he did not reveal that the ''strange lights'' were just some lights he was fooled by and on the other hand he was able to convince his superior that he wasn't nuts without going into detail though about the ''mechanical'' object.

[AgentAppleseed]

HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT RADIO TRANSMISSION FROM SGT. PENNISTON OF THE OBJECT BEING 150 FEET IN FRONT OF THEM AND THEN BEHIND, ALL WITHIN WHAT APPEARED TO BE SECONDS IN THE RADIO TRANSMISSION?


From what he (Penniston) told me, it just glided through the woods with no noise whatsoever.

Pretty soon they came back and we had radio silence. I still don’t know how that happened because from what I understand, they still had their same radios, but we could no longer pick up transmissions after we had been out there for about 45 minutes to an hour.

Airman Richard Bertolino,

From Earthfiles, Linda Moulton Howe.

[stephan]

From what he (Penniston) told me, it just glided through the woods with no noise whatsoever.

[...]

Airman Richard Bertolino

from what he TOLD him, yes. And as far as I remember J. Penniston was the only person who allegedly saw that happening... which in itself is quite difficult to believe. Bertolino confirms btw, right at the beginning of the interview, the observation of a fireball.

[AgentAppleseed]

Well you asked, and thats a good explanation if you ask me. Makes sense really. If you really do want to hear something that makes sense, Bertolinos story backs up to some degree what Penniston and Burroughs have to say. Bertolino didnt actually see a craft though. He saw a fireball, which could have just as easily been a UFO.
All the rest is assumption on your part. Bertolino claims that the fireball came down nearby, and I do believe he meant that the UFO was the fireball. But of course, if you dont accept that, then theres always David Clarkes explanation.

[stephan]

just to save time (with transcribing) I'll quote Ian here:

Bertolino reported that he was on duty on the morning of 1980 December 26 when he and his driver Sergeant Hall saw what he described as “a very bright falling star. It had a blue-green luminescence, sparkle [sic] tail to it.” He said their immediate feeling was that it was close to them and was “falling between the two bases”.

This is a classic description of a fireball. Shortly thereafter Bertolino says he heard someone on the radio yelling “There’s a UFO out here!”. In the interview Bertolino estimates the time as about 1 a.m., but it is clear from the context that what he saw was actually the 3 a.m. fireball seen by the guards at East Gate of Woodbridge. His testimony leaves little doubt that this fireball sparked off the whole UFO chase in the woods.

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1d.htm

I concur with Ian here that it is a classical description of a fireball. I've seen one for myself. It was a very impressive sight btw! I'm not sure what you mean by ''he meant that the UFO was the fireball''. Are you saying that the UFO was the fireball (ie. the fireball wasn't a fireball but actually some type of craft) or that Bertolino only thought it was.

[AgentAppleseed]

Heres what Bertolino said to LMH-

L.M.H-:

WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WAS SPARKLING BLUE-GREEN COMING DOWN OUT OF THE SKY WAS COMING DOWN VERY CLOSE TO WHERE YOU WERE AT THAT MOMENT NEAR THE WEAPONS STORAGE AREA AT RAF BENTWATERS?

BERTOLINO-:Correct. It looked like it was falling between the two bases (RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge).

And following on from that, he describes what he could see from his position upon Bunker hill:

BERTOLINO-:

The woods are all lit up!’ In that glow – I don’t know how to describe it – it’s not like a light that continually traveled. It didn’t have that property of a flashlight or a light bulb that illuminated an area. The light in Rendlesham Forest had a dome quality to it – like it lit a certain area and that was it. It was a strange light.

SO, YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHAT APPEARED TO BE HALF OF A SPHERE OF LIGHT OUT IN THE WOODS YOU COULD SEE.

Correct. Probably about the size of a football field.

Its open for debate as to what Bertolino actually meant, but here it is in his own words.

This quote came from Earthfiles, L.M.Hs site

[stephan]

here's a video of such a fireball (not a UFO):

SPARKLING BLUE-GREEN COMING DOWN OUT OF THE SKY WAS COMING DOWN VERY CLOSE TO WHERE YOU WERE

... sounds/ looks very much alike, doesn't it ?

[AgentAppleseed]

Sure does look a lot like what was described but that doesnt mean it was, after-all this video was not shot on the relevant dates at Bentwaters.
So, we have a fireball, a cop car, a truck full of fertilizer, and a lighthouse. Oh,.. and I almost forgot,... stars too! Whats next?
Of course, then are people who believe it was E.T or bust, mad made black project or bust, time travellers or bust...or.....all of the above,or bust!

[AgentAppleseed]

Speaking of cop cars, I see Kevin Condes just dropped in on FB. Maybe he came up with the police car hoax theory because he was just doing his duty for the 81st by debunking the whole thing?!

[AgentAppleseed]

Isnt it just hilarious to see a known hoaxer like Conde accuse someone else of perpetrating a hoax? LoL

[John Burroughs]

Well I go away for 24 hrs and all hell brakes loose! First of all before I go to deep into it Ian you were laying low because you light house theory was dead on arrival! As far as Buren goes he did a interview for Coast to Coast a year ago and did not say any of what he posted tonight which is very interesting! He talked about us being out there and loosing radio contact with us. He never said it was a non event.Now he does and uses words like Conrad did. This all comes out after the newspaper article does stateing we will be over there. Armold was taken off after the langage he used. And as you can see he still acts very inmature just like he did back then. He was not out there until the end of the event on the first night after everything was over. As far as Conde less see he went out in the woods without permission pulled a hoax that had a full team go out including his shift commander and nothing happened to him. He would never have been authorized to be there and he had a LE patrol car out in the woods H mm. Burn had his chance in June of 2009 nothing now he comes out with this. Armold and Conde old news but out there since 1997. Conde was offered a chance to call in on the Paul Eno show and did not why is that. And I will be talking with good old Buren and asking him why what we have on tape is different from what he has to say now. Ian and others are getting very desparate right now they don't want us to come over and once again Ian meet us in the forrest on the 28th of December and why don't you fly your new found friend Chris Armold over. And last Lt Buren stated he would try to come over for the reunion we were trying to put together interesting if it was such a Non-Event....

[Ignis Fatuus]

Why are you imposing censorship with the comments on your Facebook page?
Against another one of the fine men and women of the 81st.

Chris Armold wrote:
It's interesting that I was invited to join this group yet for some reason my posts seem to disappear. I'm a 20 year veteran of the USAF and a former member of the 81st SPS. I wandered around for two nights in the Rendlesham Forest chasing lights back in Dec, 1980. C'mon John, you and "Stopper" must remember. Hey John, care to explain why on Unsolved Mysteries you stated you were suddenly and unexpectedly sent to Korea from Bentwaters? Did you forget about your two years at Grissom AFB Indiana where you lived across the hall from me in the dorm. By the way, what is the injustice that you poor victims have suffered? What is the terrible fate you three have suffered at the hands of the government and the USAF because of your encounter? C'mon John explain how your chain of command left you high and dry.

It's not Ian that's getting desparate.
Come on John surely you are smart enought to know that History will be kinder on the first one of you to own up to this fraud. Stop picking on Ian and be a Man.

[John Burroughs]

One more interesting tibet! This one is on Conde. I just read his Face Book post which stated Ball was the Security Flight Chief and England was his shift Commander. Will Ball shift Commander was Lt Tamplin not England. England saw strange lights in the woods while on swing shift and interupted a wing party which started the ball rolling. England held over and went out with Halts team which included Ball who was just coming on. Just in Conde story has just fallen apart he responded back to my Face Book post with so what, check it out I bet Ian won't post that. Also Armold has had us on duty in some of his statements on Halts night how so? I'm sorry Ian its falling apart for you and I will be calling on Buren shortly! And if you listen to Halts tape Lt England is on it and it sure sounds like he is involved in somthing which is more than a Non event H mm. Nice try Ignis Armold statement was taken off because of his language plain and simple. We knew it would be posted other places. I allowed Conde on and his statement have remaind clean so far. Armold will also be taken down just like Conde has. Ian have Armold join this forum have him come on and make his statement for all to see. Then everybody can question him or should I say grill him like you have me. He has numoros staements posted over the years less see if they all match and pass the test of time. And after all that I will be happy to have a exchange with him. Hell bring Buren on also I'm game! And last but not least can someone post Buren full statement on this site and I know someone can pull up his Coast interview from June of last year. Its interesting that several people have jumped on there band wagon so fast with out even looking at all the information out there how come that is so and you know who you are!!!

[Ignis Fatuus]

Lame John...Lame.
What did you see again in the forest again? Why are you defending something you never saw. Retirement fund?

[John Burroughs]

Ignis What is lame Conde story just fell apart! Armold is next and after that Lt Buren I have nothing to hide and whats interesting is that you like to make statements hiding behind your computer! There is no fraud have Armold and company come on in fact why don't you man up and come over to England in December instead of hiding behind your computer oh I know the little man syndrome I'm sorry!!

[Ignis Fatuus]

Ha ha you do have a sense of humour after all. So I take it you will be going down with the ship then. So be it.
Your patter never changes, when the heat goes on you make the mistake of playing the man instead of the ball. Interesting little huddle you boys go into when discussing damage limitation. You best remember the big scary club you've made allegations against.
Boo

[AdrianF]

Interesting little development..

Who invited Chris Armold to join the group? He was hardly going to turn up playing the guitar with a rose between his teeth.

I'm with PP on this one, you can't ignore his account just because it is in direct contrast to the established story. It's because of this that it is important. He may not have gone out on the first night, but he was the one who put the call in to the local bobbies and did investigate the scene, that makes him a pretty valid commentator.

As for Skip Buran changing his story, this comment of his on Facebook is pretty much in line with what he wrote in his original statements.

Skip Buran On the first night I dispatched MSgt Chandler to the back gate to collect weapons, SSgt Penniston and I think Amn Cabansag to take a look. I had them leave their weapons on base w/Chandler. I made it clear that it was a British concern, but 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. I am not aware of what happened on subsequent nights.

[IanR]

Hypothetically speaking, perhaps Jim realized the true nature of the lights and did not want to appear as a fool - he had reported ''strange lights'' after all. So when he came back only to be ''interrogated'' by Buran he exaggerated a bit:... This way Jim would have killed two birds with one stone: on the one hand he did not reveal that the ''strange lights'' were just some lights he was fooled by and on the other hand he was able to convince his superior that he wasn't nuts without going into detail though about the ''mechanical'' object.

Stephan,

You and Iggy Fats (in a personal email some weeks ago) have both independently come up with a reading of Penniston's statement that had not previously occurred to me, and it makes good sense.

The point where Penniston reports they had gone past the (non-existent) object "and were looking a a marker beacon that was in the same direction as the other lights" was where he realized his mistake. From that moment the fix was in, as they say in the US, and we are still dealing with the consequences.

Ian