I recently came across this audio clip from paratopia.org Hosts - Jeff & Jer dissect a brilliant episode of another podcast, The Joiner Report, where host Angelia Joiner puts enough great questions to Rendlesham Forest Incident witness Jim Penniston that his testimony implodes. Though often hailed as one of the greatest UFO cases of all time, Jeff & Jer have to ask: Is the Bentwaters/Rendlesham Forest Incident dead? If so, who killed it and why? They lay out possible scenarios, but ultimately the listener must decide whatâ€™s going on here.
Like most of us I have researched this case in depth, and like so many feel that JP and JB are turning what was a fascinating case into a complete circus. Very sad... as I still think something happened that Xmas in 1980 . My guess is they are selling out.... spinning yarns for personal gain.
Penniston was caught out over his phoney notebook years ago, and he’s simply piled fairy story on fairy story since then. Glad to find that more people are seeing through it. All the dirty details here www.ianridpath.com/ufo/pennistonnotebook.htm
It was not a light house though Ianr. Light houses do not fly about or fire beams of light at your feet.. unless you think the Halt tape is a hoax?
No, I don't think the Halt tape is a hoax. In fact, it gives us a couple of good clues that the flashing light Halt saw was indeed the lighthouse, such as the compass bearing and the flash rate. It is also consistent with the notion that the starlike objects which remained visible for long periods in the north and south were in fact... stars. (Additionally, it also confirms that the radiation levels were negligible.)
What gives you the impression that the lighthouse flew about and fired beams of light at their feet? Have you actually listened to the Halt tape and read the transcript?
1. It has been proven that he light house is not capable of having its beam shine into the sighting area. The portion of the lighthouse facing the sighting area is boarded up. Those who have actually been in the sighting area have verified the beams of the lighthouse do not come into the sighting area. This canard is pushed by skeptics who are totally selling a false story.
2. Jim Penniston was interviewed by AFOSI. Standard procedure of AFOSI is to interview with chemicals, like sodium pentathol. After such interrogation the behavior which is now show by Penniston is "normal", it is unlikely that the "truth' will ever come out in a way in which we can trust as the way it actually happened. We may be able to get an overall picture but he will be suggestible and likely to confabulate details as this is part and parcel to the disinformation programs that AFOSI implants in their interrogations. Pennistons suggestibility is shown in his acceptance of the Hi-Brazil location, where clearly his code indicates otherwise. I do not trust any of his telepathic contact as genuine, because of the chemical intervention and AFOSI interogation, but believe it a likely confabulation of the truth and implanted ideas that have since come into his mind.
3. This case still has the potential to be a cornerstone of UFO knowledge given Col. Halt's evidence and testimony, in addition to the additional material presented by Linda Moulton Howe of activity on the airbase that night.
It has been proven that he light house is not capable of having its beam shine into the sighting area. The portion of the lighthouse facing the sighting area is boarded up.
Oh, for goodness’ sake... The lighthouse is not blocked from the forest, only from the town of Orford. The local forester, who actually lived in the forest, knew the lighthouse beam was visible from the forest because he had seen it, and been fooled by it himself. He showed me and a BBC film crew back in 1983 when I first started researching the case. You can see my report and the forester’s statement here www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm
Recall that the local police who were called to the scene on the first night of the incident also said that the only lights they could see were from the lighthouse (and it’s clear that’s what they thought the airmen had seen) www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.htm
I have been to the forest and seen the lighthouse flashing many times since then. Have you? The visibility of the lighthouse from the forest, specifically Halt’s site, is a matter of verifiable fact, backed up by photographic evidence over three decades. I’m afraid that anyone who has tried to tell you otherwise is deliberately trying to mislead you.
As for the rest of your message. -- well, if you want to believe Jim and LMH then it’s up to you.
Post by Truth Injection on Apr 3, 2012 12:05:54 GMT -5
As someone who is genuinely interested in understanding RFI, I find the Ian Ridpath info totally unconvincing and downright lame, to be honest. I really think he's laughing to himself with is clearly smug explanations and distortions of information i.e. at one point, on the Halt tape, he describes Col Halt as 'laughing' when he comments about a beam of light being shot to the ground. (I think it was Ridpath laughing) I've listened to the tape, and how anyone could interpret the nervous breathing (inhalation) of Halt as 'laughing' is either being disingenuous or is a strange individual.
Alright, everyone who has ever mistaken a few stars as multicolored UFOs moving in precise patterns and shooting beams of light to the ground, raise your hands. He (Ridpath) is insulting to the integrity and intelligence of the individuals involved, as if they were no better than a neophyte boy scout troop with overactive imaginations, out on their first night patrol. He can get away with this because the fact is that we'll almost certainly never know what happened in Dec 1980.
I await a better, more logical, more well thought out, cogent explanation that explains the case in in the context of it's entirety, impartially.
This is for Ian : one simple thing that is unclear to me. In the ufo hunters episode they show the mask at the back of the lighthouse that prevents (at least now) the beam from going toward land. The lighthouse keeper says it was also there at the time. So, what's wrong here ?
I'm new on this forum, but those who remember the old original 'Rendlesham Forest Incident Forum' where I was a member from day 1 and my user name was Observer. I have carried my user name over to this site. I notice that a good many of the subjects and questions being asked were all well researched [to the best of our ability] a few years ago on the old site. I hope to post some interesting things that may not have been mentioned on this forum in the near future.
Hi, lcdvasrm, only just seen your message so apologies for belated reply. The mask on the lighthouse is designed to prevent the light from flashing into the town of Orford. It does not block the light from the forest, as plenty of photographic and eyewitness evidence verifies. Indeed, it was the first thing I checked when I started out on this case back in 1983 -- see here www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.htm Unfortunately the UFO Hunters didn’t bother to do the same. Very poor research on their part. Makes you wonder what else they got wrong, doesn’t it?
Unless some body can come up with new and convincing evidence that the RFI actually did happen and it was an alien or other phenomena that would stand up in court, then I have to agree with Ian R. You must also consider that Jenny Randles who wrote a book about the incident 'Skycrash', more recently said that she no longer believes any thing of significance happened in Rendlesham forest. So why did she change her mind.
Reading the contemporaneous statements (purportedly...) written by those involved on the first night had quite a dramatic impact on Jenny's views.
If you read the material Jenny wrote shortly before James Easton sent her those statements (e.g. her book "UFO- Crash Landing? Friend or Foe?") and the material she wrote immediately afterwards (e.g. in her limited circulation NUFON newsletter and, a bit later, in "The UFOs that Never Were") then you can see quite clearly the changes in Jenny's perception of events and the reason for those changes.