The Chuckle Brothers talk Rendlesham

[IanR]

This link just in from Philip Mantle to a trailer for a two-way between Halt and Pope about Rendlesham. Seems that Pope has now thrown his weight behind Halt rather than Burroughs and Penniston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxMnWcBVizY

Be interesting to see who Halt is accusing of making an "outright lie". Could he be referring to his own claim that the lighthouse was 40 degrees off to the right of where it really is?

The sound quality makes it sound as though it was filmed in someone's spare room. Maybe a production of Nick Pope Films (2010) Ltd?

Ian

[stephan]

hmm, I'd also be interested in the piece of footage. Perhaps he means General Gabriel ?

[Admin]

Perhaps he means General Gabriel ?

Or Ted Conrad's recent claims?

[stephan]

Or Ted Conrad's recent claims?

which are ?

[IanR]

which are ?

...very damaging to Halt
http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html

Ian

[Frank]

...very damaging to Halt
http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html

Interesting! We now have a better idea where Jim's vague drawing of a box-shaped craft with a question mark may come from. He probably reluctantly made this sketch in Conrad's office after Zickler persuaded him. That explains why it is so vague, while the description of the craft in Halt's memo is much more accurate and describes a triangular craft.

Some excerpts from Clarke's page (emphasis mine):

One other significant thing happened on 28 December 1980. Maj Zickler finally convinced Sgt [James] Penniston to answer some questions for me. After a sincere guarantee that his report would have no ill effects on his career, Penniston reluctantly told his story. At the end of the session, I asked him to draw a picture of the object he had seen, which he did freehand. Jim Penniston is the only first-hand observer I was able to interview. We kept his name out of any of our correspondence to honour his request.
(...)
I asked [Penniston] for a description of the object. Penniston said he didn't get close enough for a detailed look. What he saw was generally rectangular in shape and slightly larger than a jeep in size. The object was mostly obscured by two horizontal rows of very bright closely spaced lights, one row white, the other light blue. He thought one row ran along the top, the other row around the middle. Again his distance from the object and the brightness of the lights obscured any further detailed observance. I am aware this description is at variance with subsequent statements and drawing made by others.


Here's Penniston's narrative to the best of my recollection. I'm paraphrasing, of course:
“….The lights were clearly visible when I arrived at the RAF Woodbridge gate. No one knew the source of the the lights, but some speculated that it was close enough to the approach path of the runway that it could in fact be a crashed plane. Because of this, it was decided that further investigation was warranted. Burroughs, Cabansag and myself were sent out by jeep. We worked our way toward the still- visible lights by way of a logging road. As we approached close enough to have a clear view of the site, [Burroughs?] decided we were close enough and stopped the vehicle. We were still more than 100 meters away and, wanting a better look, I decided to proceed further on foot. [Burroughs?] accompanied me as we closed on what we began to see was an object with lights on it. Our apprehension began to build,so we stopped about 50 meters away, taking cover behind some brush. After studying the situation for about 10 minutes, we decided to move in yet further for a closer look. Just as we began to close the distance to the object, it began to move away through the trees. The faster we moved toward it the faster it moved away. By the time we arrived at an open field a much greater distance had opened up between us,and soon it disappeared beyond a small rise in the direction of a farm house. After a short pause , we decided we had had enough and headed back toward [Cabansag] and the jeep. With a quick glance over the shoulder we saw the thing again back at the hill,this time coming toward us. We ran to get away, but within two seconds it was up and gone.-------(end of narrative)…”

Jim's drawing, which includes the men taking cover behind some brush (at the bottom):

[John Burroughs]

Ian
So now you have stooped to a all time low! Your now trying to say somthing is going on between all of us. Thats the farthest from the truth. Your not even close or have any Idea about what's about to happen. Sit back because there is a frieight train coming!

[jpenniston]

You really don't have a clue on this one. I am told that you are unable to attend on the 28th of December. It is too bad your not interested in the facts.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Sit back because there is a frieight train coming!

[stephan]

part II:

[ncf1]

After watching those two videos, I didn't see Pope throwing his weight behind Halt in any way at all.. in fact it seems Halt is replying just as he always has, it doesn't really seem there is anything new in there. He's most likely referring to Larry, he's always has his doubts about Larry and I would say he's just re-iterating it once again.

Hopefully Halt will divulge a bit more but so far from those 2 videos the answers he has given are the same stock answers he has given to questions asked him for years.

[arvd]

Ian
So now you have stooped to a all time low! Your now trying to say somthing is going on between all of us. Thats the farthest from the truth. Your not even close or have any Idea about what's about to happen. Sit back because there is a frieight train coming!

Cant wait for the 28th. The day you and Jim prove once and for all that the RFI happened. The freight train must be photographic or film footage.