Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident

[MapperGuy]

Late to the discussion but..

If you lose a nuke you don't use a cover story that it was a flying saucer.
You say it was a conventional bomb. Those are dangerous too.
"The nuke recovery team that showed up? There are here as a training exercise, because you don't get to recover a nuke very often, so they are helping the UXB team recover the conventional bomb. For practice."
"Nothing to see here, just stay back in case the (conventional) bomb detonates."

Cover stories should never exagerate the situation, they should downplay it.

 

[Mendel]

Cover stories should never exagerate the situation, they should downplay it.

Which is the real lesson learned from Project Mogul.

 

[Ian Ridpath]

Unsurpassable provenance, thank you. And now I know it's not just a random piece of paperwork pulled out of historical files, but one delivered straight into the care of the person who scanned it, the other issues evapourate too.

Thank you!

 

[JJB]

To this day, Halt is tight lipped about whether there were nuclear weapons. So, he'd be equally tight lipped about what 'really' happened. And in my view, that includes the entire UFO incident being a cover story.

It's odd how the infamous 'landing site' just happens to align within a few degrees of the runway. Just the right location for something to fall off a plane coming in to land from the east, in fact. Well....a piece of ordnance landing in a forest outside the base would not go down too well. They'd have to remove it....hence all the massive floodlights. And why else would Halt have his Geiger counter with him ?? Why take a Geiger counter to debunk a UFO ? In fact, why even be out there at all at 3am, on a cold winter night, with Geiger counter, floodlights, a team of at least 5 people, and relaying everything back to base, just to dismiss some 'lights in the woods' ?

Ask yourself...why would they have floodlights in the forest at 3am to look for the landing site, when they already knew where the alleged site was ( Penniston says he returned to it the day after his incident, to make plaster casts ) and Halt went right there on his visit 2 days later. So what are those floodlights really looking for ?

And go through the Halt tape......over 2/3 of it, at the start, makes zero reference to any lights or UFO but is ALL related to radiation levels. They are in the forest for over half an hour before anyone even mentions any lights. All very odd if the sole reason for them being there IS the UFO lights....almost as if the UFO bit is added later.

So Halt is charged with concocting a cover story for what really happened. 'Make it look like a UFO'. There are claims that the OSI turned up. Would they really care about odd lights in the woods ? I doubt it. There'd be a cover story covering several nights, to confuse the actual date ( which the Halt memo further compounds by getting the dates 'wrong'...which is odd for someone who meticulously records everything ), and various staff including Halt himself would be the fall guys for a crazy UFO story where Halt can't recall important details and people keep changing their stories....because none of it ever actually happened.

So, 45 years later we have the 'Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident'...rather than 'Yet another embarrassing incident where nuclear ordnance fell off a plane' ( actually known as 'Broken Arrow' incidents ).

Honestly, this theory makes a lot more sense than glowing triangles and time-traveling craft. The whole situation does feel way too elaborate for "just some lights in the woods."


Geiger counters, floodlights, teams dispatched at 3am - not exactly standard protocol for chasing rumors. And yeah, the obsession with radiation readings is hard to explain if this was just some mass misidentification.


A "Broken Arrow" cover-up using a UFO story as a distraction? It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention. And 45 years later, we're still chasing lights - not answers.

 

[JMartJr]

Cover stories should never exagerate the situation, they should downplay it.

But with the proviso that "should" and "do" are not synonymous! ^_^

 

[Eburacum]

So crashed disks were a thing there for a minute...

Plenty of crashed disks in 1947.
Here's a list from a now-defunct website; unfortunately I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it is probably fairly accurate.
42 similar events in 1947 were misidentified as flying disks, in the US and elsewhere. Many of these are crashed weather balloons or other similar events.

1947 crashes

==========
6-20-47 Titusville, PA [and other locations]
6-21-47 Tacoma, Washington
6-25-47 Nyssa, Oregon Ob
6-27-47 Tularosa and Eagle, New Mexico
7-1-47 Circleville, Ohio (weather balloon)
7-4-47 Roswell, New Mexico (secret balloon)
7-6-47 Grafton Wisconsin
7-6-47 East St. Louis, Illinois
7-7-47 Oxford, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-7-47 New Hampshire
7-7-47 Jackson, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-7-47 Shreveport, Louisiana
7-7-47 Bozeman, Montana
7-7-47 Oelwein, Iowa
7-8-47 Ludlow, Kentucky
7-8-47 South Bloomfield, Ohio (probably weather balloon)
7-8-47 Windsor, Ontario Canada
7-9-47 Baker, Montana (probably weather balloon)
7-9-47 Midland, Michigan
7-9-47 North Hollywood, California
7-9-47 Thompsonville, Connecticut (weather balloon)
7-9-47 Rindge, New Hampshire
7-10-47 Greensburgh/West Chester, N. Y. (weather balloon)
7-10-47 Springfield, Massachusettes
7-10-47 Beulah Bay, Alabama
7-10-47 Niwot, Colorado (weather balloon)
7-11-47 Woodworth, North Dakota
7-11-47 Laurel, Maryland
7-11-47 Black River Falls, Wisconsin
7-11-47 Twin Falls, Idaho
7-12-47 Eugene, Oregon
7-12-47 Linden, New Jersey
7-12-47 Eastchester, New York
7-12-47 Nelsonville, Ohio
7-13-47 Amarillo, Texas
7-15-47 Clearwater, Florida
7-15-47 Seattle, Washington
7-17-47 Marysville, Kansas (probably weather balloon)
7-18-47 Chengtu, China (weather balloon)
7-23-47 Ragland, West Virginia (weather balloon)
8-8-47 Mullensville, West Virginia (weather balloon)

 

[Ann K]

It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention.

Let's have some credible evidence first, before we make up a story.

 

[Mendel]

It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention.

What was the first time?

I submit it was not the first time something mundane got slapped with "UFO" label to generate attention.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Honestly, this theory makes a lot more sense than glowing triangles and time-traveling craft. The whole situation does feel way too elaborate for "just some lights in the woods."

Let's remember, many of the more fantastical elements were added much later, as is common in UFO stories. Penniston didn't mention time-travelers for another 15, after going through hypnosis. In his original statement he only states the UFO was "mechanical in nature" and seems to say he never got closer than 50 meters:

He drew it as a sorta squat conical flying saucer to my mind, somewhat hidden in the forest:

Possibly a few days later he drew it as a triangle, however while this sketch is dated 12/29/1980, it only surfaced in the mid '90s:

Besides the nature of the UFO and the time travelers, Penniston also added telepathically acquired binary code to the event 30 years later in 2010. IF Penniston is just an actor playing a role Holt or others scripted for him, why all the embellishments over the years? Why write a 700 page book about and event that never happened. What's the point?

 

[JJB]

IF Penniston is just an actor playing a role Holt or others scripted for him, why all the embellishments over the years? Why write a 700 page book about and event that never happened. What's the point?

If Penniston was just playing a role, the constant embellishments make sense: keep the story alive, stay relevant, and sell books. It's not about truth - it's about keeping the myth profitable. After all these years, Rendlesham looks more like a career move than an encounter.

 

[JJB]

What was the first time?

I submit it was not the first time something mundane got slapped with "UFO" label to generate attention.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention. Roswell's a classic case - people still talk flying saucers, but it was likely debris from Project Mogul, a Cold War surveillance balloon the government needed to keep quiet. Same thing with the wave of UFO sightings in the '50s and '60s - many lined up with U-2 and SR-71 spy plane tests. Even the CIA admitted they let the UFO stories run to protect classified programs.


Kecksburg? Could've been a downed Soviet satellite. Rendlesham? Possibly a Broken Arrow or ordnance screw-up. In each case, the "UFO" label conveniently draws public attention away from what might really be going on.


Sometimes, a flashy mystery is the perfect way to bury an inconvenient truth.

 

[JJB]

Let's have some credible evidence first, before we make up a story.

So wait - are you saying glowing triangles and time‑traveling craft make more sense than misidentified aircraft, military tests, or accidents?

 

[Mendel]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention.

I said "mundane", not "bizarre".

Roswell's a classic case - people still talk flying saucers, but it was likely debris from Project Mogul, a Cold War surveillance balloon the government needed to keep quiet.

wasn't surveillance, was long-range reconnaissance.

Same thing with the wave of UFO sightings in the '50s and '60s - many lined up with U-2 and SR-71 spy plane tests. Even the CIA admitted they let the UFO stories run to protect classified programs.

Yes. Secret weapon systems tests are not "bizarre", they're necessary, and of course they couldn't reveal them.

Kecksburg? Could've been a downed Soviet satellite. Rendlesham? Possibly a Broken Arrow or ordnance screw-up. In each case, the "UFO" label conveniently draws public attention away from what might really be going on.

The point is, it did not do that for Rendlesham; it created attention where there had been none.

Sometimes, a flashy mystery is the perfect way to bury an inconvenient truth.

That was never the case.

Article:

Project Mogul (sometimes referred to as Operation Mogul) was a top secret project by the US Army Air Forces involving microphones flown on high-altitude balloons, whose primary purpose was long-distance detection of sound waves generated by Soviet atomic bomb tests.

While successful, the balloon method was soon superseded by seismic detectors.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul

The "bizarre" stuff is Hal Puthoff's PSI research, or the AAWSAP papers on warp drives etc. that were meant to cover up their UFO and paranormal "investigations".

 

[Ann K]

So wait - are you saying glowing triangles and time‑traveling craft make more sense than misidentified aircraft, military tests, or accidents?

Don't be silly. I'm not sure why you think that those are the only options. What ever happened to meteor strikes and stars and lighthouses, all of which we know exist? Perhaps it was all a deliberate hoax? Perhaps one person or group stumbling around in the trees carrying flashlights was spooked by another person or group doing the same? Perhaps the whole bunch of them were drunk as a skunk after a good Christmas dinner? Perhaps the policemen that were called, a little tiddly themselves, didn't take any of them seriously?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Roswell's a classic case - people still talk flying saucers, but it was likely debris from Project Mogul, a Cold War surveillance balloon the government needed to keep quiet.

Sorta. Roswell had one guy, Air Force information officer Walter Haut, tell the news on July 8th they had recovered a "flying disk" during what was a big flying disk flap at the time:

The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County.

The bigger fake cover story was that it was a weather balloon, with a demonstration on July 10th, just 2 days after Haut's flying disk claim:

The 1947 official account omitted any connection to Cold War military programs.[32]​ On July 10, military personnel at Alamogordo gave a demonstration to the press. Four officers provided a false account of mundane weather balloon usage throughout the previous year. They demonstrated balloon configurations used by the Mogul team as ways to gather meteorological data, offering a plausible explanation for any unusual aspects of the Roswell debris.[33]​[34]​ The Air Force later described the weather balloon story as "an attempt to deflect attention from the top secret Mogul project."[35]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_incident

Even the CIA admitted they let the UFO stories run to protect classified programs.

Agreed. But again, it's just letting UFO stories go unexplained, not elaborately scripted fake stories. Link to thread below about how many times secret aircraft might have been seen as UFOs.

Kecksburg? Could've been a downed Soviet satellite.

Without going through the Kecksburg event, at best some Army officials showed up at a reported crash site and claimed to have found nothing. Possibly, some NASA personnel MAY have recovered some Soviet wreckage, but it's very unclear. More importantly, the government did not, AFAIK, create or plant a UFO story. That was created by UFO people over the ensuing years. Like Roswell and Redlesahm, many of the now canonical details, like a flat bed truck hauling off an acorn shaped UFO, were added years later by "new witnesses" that came forward and "remembered" things from long ago.

Scaramanga's theory for a fake UFO story at Rendlesham is orders of magnitude beyond any of the above mentioned situations. Multiple fake witnesses, all of whom have kept the story going, an actual recording that purports to be Halt looking for a lost nuke while at the same time suggesting elements of his fake UFO story.

In the above cases, there is arguably something to cover-up, assuming that happened. A mogal balloon did seem to crash and get brought into Roswell. The CIA was flying secret aircraft. Something did fly across the sky over Kecksburg, likely a bolide, but possibly a Soviet satellite. IF there was a Broken Arrow event near Rendlesham, there is zero evidence of it. Nothing. Not even rumors that I'm aware of. There was no need to create a cover story, certainly not one this elaborate.

The evidence of a Broken Arrow event seems to be:

1. Halt was called away from a dinner for unknown reasons and headed into the woods.
2. Halt took a ginger counter into the woods.
3. Halt is "cagey" about whether nuclear weapons were still at Bentwaters or Woodbridge in 1980.
4. Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs didn't date their statements.
5. The main witnesses stories don't align.
6. The supposed landing/crash site and area of interest is sorta close to the runway at Woodbridge.

Still sounds like a typical UFO story to me.

CIA and UFOs thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...o-reports-in-the-50s-and-60s-in-the-us.13063/

 

[Scaramanga]

Honestly, this theory makes a lot more sense than glowing triangles and time-traveling craft. The whole situation does feel way too elaborate for "just some lights in the woods."


Geiger counters, floodlights, teams dispatched at 3am - not exactly standard protocol for chasing rumors. And yeah, the obsession with radiation readings is hard to explain if this was just some mass misidentification.


A "Broken Arrow" cover-up using a UFO story as a distraction? It wouldn't be the first time something bizarre got slapped with the "UFO" label to redirect attention. And 45 years later, we're still chasing lights - not answers.

The thing that is truly absurd is just how much of the full story gets ignored in order to fit the hypothesis into the 'lighthouse and stars' theory that so many have spent 45 years falling for.

I mean, Penniston claimed to see an actual physical craft landed on the forest floor, with textured skin etc. How the hell does a lighthouse explain that ! Even the lighthouse theory HAS to regard Penniston's testimony as made up. In which case, why would he embellish a supposed mere confusion over a lighthouse like that ?

So even the lighthouse theorists have to agree that Penniston's claims are made up. But they cannot explain why that would be the case.

My theory of a cover story perfectly explains it. The entire Penniston/Burroughs 'encounter' is a diversion. The entire reason Penniston, Burroughs, and Cabansag vary so wildly over what happened is because it never happened. I doubt there was even time to invent a fully fleshed out story and pass the memo to all three.

Note that Cabansag even denies in his statement that there was any landed object. I mean...hello ?.....one of the fake witnesses even gives the game away and effectively states 'this never happened'.

 

[John J.]

Roswell's a classic case - people still talk flying saucers, but it was likely debris from Project Mogul, a Cold War surveillance balloon the government needed to keep quiet.

Roswell is not a classic case of someone using UFOs/ flying saucers as a cover story.

As @NorCal Dave pointed out, the link between the material recovered near Corona (approx. 85 miles/ 137km from Roswell) and UFOs was made by a USAAF public information officer, Lieutenant Walter Haut in a release to Associated Press dated 8 July 1947:

The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_incident)
It isn't clear to what extent Haut's statement was his own work, but he might have been responsible for the somewhat sensationalist wording: It must be unlikely that a Lieutenant would, in 1947, be chosen to tell (or at least imply to) the American people that advanced foreign or extraterrestrial vehicles were overflying the United States just a day or so after some foil-like material and wooden struts had been found.

This was just over two weeks after Kenneth Arnold's claimed sighting of 24 June over Washington State, which was widely publicized.
As discussed elsewhere on this forum, there was subsequently a flurry of other claimed sightings of flying discs/ saucers (what we'd now call a "flap") which is interesting because we know the "flying saucer" description came from a pressman's misinterpretation of Arnold's report; Arnold did not describe or draw his observations as discs.

Haut's press release led to the to the 8th July 1947 Roswell Daily Record headline, "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region".

Media interest in the case dissipated soon after a press conference where General Roger Ramey, his chief of staff Colonel Thomas DuBose, and weather officer Irving Newton identified the material as pieces of a weather balloon.

(Wikipedia, as above). This was on the 8th or 9th of July.
It is possible that Ramey, DuBose and Newton thought it was a weather balloon at that time (I don't think we know).

Some of the debris was flown to Wright Field airbase, where

...Colonel Marcellus Duffy identified it as balloon equipment. Duffy had previous experience with Project Mogul and contacted Mogul's project officer Albert Trakowski to discuss the debris. Unable to disclose details about the project, Duffy identified it as "meteorological equipment".

From the point of Duffy's suspicion of the debris being from a MOGUL balloon, which it was, the Ramey, DuBose and Newton meteorology balloon explanation became, in effect, a cover story- or at least an incorrect but credible early explanation that USAAF officers "in the know" didn't contradict.

in 1991, retired US air Force (USAF) Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, who had posed with debris for press photographs in 1947, acknowledged the "weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press."

Wikipedia, ibid.

But, other than Haut's press release, which was effectively refuted/ de-mystified by more senior USAAF staff within one day, there's no evidence of UFOs being used as a cover story, or that Haut intended his "flying disc" press release to be a cover story or any form of misdirection.

Geiger counters, floodlights, teams dispatched at 3am - not exactly standard protocol for chasing rumors.

I don't think floodlights feature in the Penniston/ Cabansag/ Burroughs/ Buran/ Chandler statements or in Halt's account.
Other accounts, featuring beings suspended in a beam of light, officers meeting aliens and someone opening fire are perhaps less likely (and come from claimants who, for whatever reason, Halt did not ask for witness statements).*

Halt's interpretation of Geiger counter readings was flawed. It must be highly likely that there were personnel at Bentwaters and/ or Woodbridge who were more familiar with radiation monitoring; it is certain that this would be the case at Lakenheath, which stored US nuclear weapons**. Halt did not co-opt any of these personnel- something of an oversight if you're going to retrieve a weapon containing fissile material which has been dropped at speed.

Neither Halt or any of the Security Police witnesses would be likely candidates for assessing and moving a dropped bomb.
It's just not their specialization: The same reason we wouldn't expect Halt to be competent to perform combat surgery or the SPs to pilot jets.


*Maybe Halt was unaware of their participation in the events...

**Regardless of whether Woodbridge or Bentwaters stored nuclear weapons, both would have been expected to attempt to continue operations in an NBC environment if necessary. The 1980s were grim in some ways.

 

[Scaramanga]

Don't be silly. I'm not sure why you think that those are the only options. What ever happened to meteor strikes and stars and lighthouses, all of which we know exist? Perhaps it was all a deliberate hoax? Perhaps one person or group stumbling around in the trees carrying flashlights was spooked by another person or group doing the same? Perhaps the whole bunch of them were drunk as a skunk after a good Christmas dinner? Perhaps the policemen that were called, a little tiddly themselves, didn't take any of them seriously?

Why are all your suggestions 'not silly' but...God forbid...a cover story ( I mean nobody ever did one of those before, right ?) is silly ?

What gets me is how people hang on every word of the alleged story, yet hardly anyone asks whether any of it actually happened at all, let alone as described. Surely the very first question we should be asking is not 'how do we explain what is claimed ?'.....but 'did what is claimed actually happen ?'

If I claim to have seen a ghost half way up Ben Macdui last night, then rather than spending hours pontificating on meteorology or aurora or whether ghosts exists.....you should establish whether I was even on Ben Macdui last night.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't think floodlights feature in the Penniston/ Cabansag/ Burroughs/ Buran/ Chandler statements or in Halt's account.
Other accounts, featuring beings suspended in a beam of light, officers meeting aliens and someone opening fire are perhaps less likely (and come from claimants who, for whatever reason, Halt did not ask for witness statements).*

I beg to differ. Floodlights ( I think they call them 'light-alls' ) DO figure in practically every telling of the Halt story. What is never clear is just how far the lights are from the 'landing site'.

I've seen multiple different versions of the Penniston/Burroughs/Cabansag story over the years. Up until fairly recently I was under the impression, from those reports, that it was only Penniston and Burroughs who'd approached the object. I think what happened was that someone ( I forget the exact name, but a fourth person ) was left behind at the vehicle and people have assumed that was Cabansag when it wasn't. Cabansag's own statement makes it very clear he was with Penniston and Burroughs the entire time.

All the 'officers meeting aliens' stuff comes from Larry Warren.....who is disputed by practically every other witness. Halt claimes Larry Warren was never there. However, the new film Capel Green ( due do be on general release by November ) is claimed to provide a whole bunch of new witnesses including one who 'confirms' Larry Warren was there.

People claim Larry Warren is a fantasist. But then...Penniston claimed to see an alien craft. Burroughs even claimed ( under hypnosis ) to be inside it. Halt claims to have seen a UFO right overhead, shining a narrow beam of light downwards. If these people are all fantasists then I'd be more worried that they were in charge of our nuclear response than I would be about aliens.

 

[Scaramanga]

Neither Halt or any of the Security Police witnesses would be likely candidates for assessing and moving a dropped bomb.
It's just not their specialization: The same reason we wouldn't expect Halt to be competent to perform combat surgery or the SPs to pilot jets.

True, but the claim is not that Halt is removing the bomb or even checking THE dropped bomb site. He's creating a diversion afterwards.

1) Halt needs a reason for checking a diversionary site. Hence the 'landing site' is invented via the Penniston/ Burroughs 'encounter'.

2) Halt is not checking 'the' site. He's setting up a diversion site. The true site may be way over on the other side of the base for all we know.

People then spend 45 years arguing over lighthouses and stars and the Forestry Commission even put a 'UFO Landing Site' marker in the forest. Even skeptics end up accepting the 'story' as told....never mind the 1001 internal contradictions in it.

 

[Mendel]

I don't think floodlights feature in the Penniston/ Cabansag/ Burroughs/ Buran/ Chandler statements or in Halt's account.

Halt says on the tape that they have a light-all, but couldn't get it to work. Scaramanga's point was that it was sent out, which is correct, but of course proves nothing.

 

[Mendel]

The thing that is truly absurd is just how much of the full story gets ignored in order to fit the hypothesis into the 'lighthouse and stars' theory that so many have spent 45 years falling for.

I mean, Penniston claimed to see an actual physical craft landed on the forest floor, with textured skin etc. How the hell does a lighthouse explain that !

It doesn't when you have contradictory witness stories, you need to ignore some, in this case, everyone who was on the scene and did not see the contraption Penniston describes.

Also, Penniston would only have seen the top of the lighthouse, appearing lower because of the distance, so he'd easily assume it was sitting on the ground. Ask yourself what shape the top of a lighthouse is!

 

[John J.]

I mean, Penniston claimed to see an actual physical craft landed on the forest floor, with textured skin etc. How the hell does a lighthouse explain that !

A flying triangle (depending on which of Penniston's descriptions we use) that telepathically transmits ASCII coordinates of various former religious sites and a mythical island.
Granted, it's not a lighthouse.

But it must be a very special type of nuclear bomb...

The film Dark Star comes to mind:

...the computer is able to convince the bomb to return to the bomb bay, but the bomb warns that it will not be persuaded again. ...With seconds left until detonation, the bomb agrees to suspend its countdown while it ponders Doolittle's ideas.

Even the lighthouse theory HAS to regard Penniston's testimony as made up.

Not necessarily, if we go by his original witness statement.
He may have misperceived what he could see- there are several threads giving examples of this sort of perceptual error on this forum.
Penniston's statement might have been made in good faith, but his perception may have been inaccurate.
We might have some concerns about his statement- the lack of time and date, for example. Not mentioning- as Burroughs and Cabansag did- that they ended up looking at a lighthouse!

Penniston's later additions to his story are harder to understand as accurate recollection.

But they cannot explain why that would be the case.

Sometimes, people make things up. People tell tall stories. That's why we have expressions like "tall stories".
Sometimes there isn't an obvious motivation. Here's a possible one:

...keep the story alive, stay relevant, and sell books. It's not about truth - it's about keeping the myth profitable. After all these years, Rendlesham looks more like a career move than an encounter.

My theory of a cover story perfectly explains it. The entire Penniston/Burroughs 'encounter' is a diversion. The entire reason Penniston, Burroughs, and Cabansag vary so wildly over what happened is because it never happened.

But you haven't provided or linked to any evidence of anything even remotely like a "broken arrow" occurring.
No evidence of an aircraft in difficulty.
No reason for a nuclear-armed aircraft to be present at Woodbridge/ Bentwaters at 03:00. No heightened alert. No ongoing exercise.
The A-10 aircraft stationed at the the twin bases would not fly armed at night, and are very unlikely to have been nuclear-armed at any time.
No explanation for UK air traffic control and UK air defence radar mysteriously not tracking the hypothetical aircraft: RAF Woodbridge was only 74 miles from London. And Suffolk is largely flat terrain.
No evidence whatsoever of appropriate personnel being alerted and/or deployed for (1) an aircraft in distress (2) to recover a bomb.
The attending local police noted markings perhaps made by animals, not tyre or track marks.
You haven't explained why it has to be a nuclear weapon, not a conventional bomb or perhaps a sensitive recce pod.
No explanation of how a potentially damaged store was retrieved so quickly (an accidental detonation would not be desirable).
You haven't explained why this has to be a cover-up of a weapon loss: Why not illegal off-base SP action against airmen having an ill-disciplined "party" in the woods, using drugs, or holding a Satanic Mass? (I'm not suggesting any of this is at all likely! But the first two might be more likely than a broken arrow).
You haven't addressed why a cover story needed to be publicized nearly 3 years after events that nobody had heard of.
Or why a cover story that would exacerbate interest in those events would be used.

The entire reason Penniston, Burroughs, and Cabansag vary so wildly over what happened is because it never happened.

Frankly, if you read the original statements, they're fairly consistent other than Penniston claiming to be within 50m of a lightsource, which he identified as being mechanical (so is a lighthouse) and failure to mention that they ended up looking at a lighthouse.

And we're heading into "unfalsifiable hypothesis" territory: If the statements were very similar, it's a sign of a cover-up. If they diverge, it's a sign of a cover-up.

 

[JJB]

For the record, that whole "UFOs as a cover" from Scaramanga - sounded really interesting, not saying I actually buy it. I was only tossing the idea around. Governments have used UFO stories before (CIA letting UFO chatter protect spy plane tests, etc.), so it's not impossible. Kecksburg, Rendlesham — who knows? But my point wasn't that I believe those explanations, just that history shows the "UFO" label can be a convenient distraction.

My take on Rendlesham, which I posted earlier, is something different. #251

 

[Mendel]

For the record, that whole "UFOs as a cover" from Scaramanga - sounded really interesting,

conspiracy theories usually make great fiction, mainly because they don't have to adhere to an unexciting truth. Unfortunately, they're not sold as such.

 

[John J.]

I was just playing with it, not saying I actually buy it.

Nothing wrong with considering new possibilities or alternative explanations!
Agreement/ consensus is good, but often hard to achieve when we're discussing unusual claims with incomplete or inconsistent information.
I guess we shouldn't be trying to establish some orthodoxy.
@Scaramanga's dropped bomb theory is interesting, and deserves consideration. It certainly isn't physically impossible.
But I don't think there's any circumstantial evidence- at this time- that supports it, and much that makes it unlikely.
The implausibility of some of the accounts from original witnesses (particularly some detailed claims years after the event) doesn't (IMHO) automatically increase the likelihood that they were, or are, peddling a cover story.
And even if it did, why that cover story should be for a dropped nuclear bomb has not been explained. Lots goes on at large military bases.

It must be fair to say that the accounts given by the witnesses has changed or expanded over time (particularly Penniston's narrative, and Burrough's account given under hypnosis is, um, of debatable value).* The accuracy of some claimed witnesses (who were not asked for statements by Halt, and who didn't feature in the statements that were taken, and who, in at least one case, advances highly dramatic claims) might be questionable.

*Claims of an extended period examining a landed craft or of entering a craft (Burroughs, under hypnosis) are not supported by those men's, or Airman Cabansag's, original witness statements. They are contradicted by Lt. Buran and MSgt. Chandler's statements- Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag were in radio contact, via Chandler in his vehicle, with Buran in the CSC; Buran and Chandler did not record any prolonged period out of contact.

 

[Scaramanga]

Also, Penniston would only have seen the top of the lighthouse, appearing lower because of the distance, so he'd easily assume it was sitting on the ground.

Seriously ?? I Mean just how much evasive nonsense one has to invent to get the lighthouse to even remotely match Penniston's report is more a matter of blind allegiance to the lighthouse theory than it is to the sort of critical thinking we're supposed to be doing here.

If a skeptic theory just has to match the data at all costs...even when it doesn't....then one is no better of than the believers.

 

[Scaramanga]

But you haven't provided or linked to any evidence of anything even remotely like a "broken arrow" occurring.

How about you first provide evidence that ANY of 'the story' actually happened. Other than a police report we can probably rely on....NONE of what is alleged to have happened has any evidence whatever.

Not only is there zero evidence that the Penniston/Burroughs incident ever happened....but the statements on it totally contradict each other. I don't just mean minor contradictions...I mean mutually exclusive versions.

There are quite literally three completely different versions of what happened that night.

So, if we assume that the event never happened, we have to ask why would those guys say it did. OK so it may not be a dropped bomb or whatever, but to my mind it is a cover story for something else that occurred.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Seriously ?? I Mean just how much evasive nonsense one has to invent to get the lighthouse to even remotely match Penniston's report is more a matter of blind allegiance to the lighthouse theory than it is to the sort of critical thinking we're supposed to be doing here.

If a skeptic theory just has to match the data at all costs...even when it doesn't....then one is no better of than the believers.

They were looking in the direction of the lighthouse, so the parsimonious explanation is the periodic light they were seeing was the lighthouse.

Ian Ridpath did a video interview with Vince Thurkettle for the BBC in 1983 and they were able to see the lighthouse at night from the forest.

Article:

It shows the Orford Ness lighthouse flashing as seen from near the eastern edge of the forest, in the same direction that the US airmen saw their flashing UFO.

Source: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1c.html

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/vince.mov - section of interview showing the lighthouse beacon at night from there.

Also more info and pics here from further visits by Ridpath:

Article:

Within days of the story breaking, I visited Rendlesham Forest at night with a BBC TV camera crew to interview forester Vince Thurkettle and film the lighthouse flashing as seen from the area where Col Halt, the prime witness, had seen his flashing UFO. However, it was not until many years after my initial visit that I was able to pin down exactly where Col Halt had been standing. The clue came from an online interview Halt gave to Salley Rayl on the Microsoft Network in 1997 May, by when he had retired from the air force and felt freer to speak. In this interview, the existence of which was brought to my attention by James Easton, Halt noted that the UFO had appeared closely in line with a farmhouse 'directly in front of us'.

Armed with this new lead, I returned to Rendlesham Forest in 1998 October. Scouting around at the forest edge, I discovered something that I had not appreciated previously: the top of the lighthouse peeps through a gap between distant trees, and can be seen directly from only a limited area of the forest. Remarkably enough, when I was positioned so that I could see the lighthouse through the gap in the distant tree line, the farmhouse lay right in front of me, in the same line of sight, just as Halt had described it as lining up with the flashing UFO.

Source: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2.html

View attachment 68310


Also further discussion of whether the beam would be visible:
View attachment 68311

Article:

Above is a super-telephoto view of the top of the Orfordness lighthouse peeking through a notch between trees on the skyline, as seen from the eastern edge of Rendlesham Forest where the flashing UFO was sighted.

Source: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/lighthouse_visibility.html

View attachment 68312

Article:

The lighthouse photographed by me on Orford Ness on 2013 August 28. Comparison with Image 1 at the top of the page shows that the viewing azimuth is identical to the view from the forest edge. Through the windows, the outline of one of the three giant rotating Fresnel lenses that focused the beam can be seen.

Source: http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/lighthouse_visibility.html

 

[Scaramanga]

@Scaramanga's dropped bomb theory is interesting, and deserves consideration. It certainly isn't physically impossible.
But I don't think there's any circumstantial evidence- at this time- that supports it, and much that makes it unlikely.
The implausibility of some of the accounts from original witnesses (particularly some detailed claims years after the event) doesn't (IMHO) automatically increase the likelihood that they were, or are, peddling a cover story.
And even if it did, why that cover story should be for a dropped nuclear bomb has not been explained. Lots goes on at large military bases.

I'm not insisting on a dropped bomb. That is merely one explanation.

I am insisting that stories are cover stories...and that if you really examine all the evidence it points that way. It is the only way to explain accounts that are mutually exclusive.

Everyone knows the accounts of witnesses can vary. One person might say a bank robber had a blue jersey...another might say it was green. But what if one witness says the robber was 6 foot tall and wearing a John Travolta dancing suit....while another says the robber was a woman wearing a Baywatch bathing suit ?

Well, we have that with Rendlesham. We have, for example, Penniston and Burroughs claiming to see a landed object that Cabansag never mentions even though he was with them. We have Halt, and even people inside the base, claiming beams of light in the weapons storage unit....that others ( such as base commander Conrad ) deny ever happened. There is a long list of such things.

We have Penniston and Halt both independently and wrongly recording the date of the 'first' incident as 27th December. Halt then records an incorrect date for his own incident as well. If something never actually happened then its easy to get the date wrong !

 

[Scaramanga]

They were looking in the direction of the lighthouse, so the parsimonious explanation is the periodic light they were seeing was the lighthouse.

Seriously ?? Penniston claims a 9 foot wide metallic craft on the forest floor that he walks around ( how does one do that with a lighthouse ) and touches and feels it is warm, and notes strange markings on it.

And that's all a lighthouse 6 miles away ?? That is taking 'parsimonious' to absurd levels.

Incidentally...if you read Cabansag's statement, its clear Ian Ridpath wasn't the one who discovered the lighthouse. It's right there in Cabansag's statement ( ' the beacon light was the yellow light ' )....but they were actually chasing red and blue lights. It's clear, though, that they were quite aware of the lighthouse !

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Cabansag.PNG

 

[NorCal Dave]

True, but the claim is not that Halt is removing the bomb or even checking THE dropped bomb site. He's creating a diversion afterwards.

1) Halt needs a reason for checking a diversionary site. Hence the 'landing site' is invented via the Penniston/ Burroughs 'encounter'.

2) Halt is not checking 'the' site. He's setting up a diversion site. The true site may be way over on the other side of the base for all we know.

OK, so if I understand you correctly, the Halt recording is a fake. He's not out looking for UFOs, because that's just the cover story he/others invented. He's not out looking for the supposedly dropped nuke, that was already completed before Halt ever headed out into the woods. He's just running around recording himself doing silly things, like collecting tree sap and looking at trees with Night Vision equipment at the "supposed landing site" to establish it as the "supposed landing site" to call attention away from the actual "nuke was dropped here site". Right?

The actual nuke drop site could have been "way over on the other side of the base" as you stated.

If so, this raises some questions about what you considered evidence of a Broken Arrow event back in post #255:

It's odd how the infamous 'landing site' just happens to align within a few degrees of the runway. Just the right location for something to fall off a plane coming in to land from the east, in fact. Well....a piece of ordnance landing in a forest outside the base would not go down too well. They'd have to remove it....hence all the massive floodlights.

But the "infamous 'landing site" that "just happens to align within a few degrees of the runway", means nothing IF in fact it's a fake landing site created as a diversion. IF it's a fake landing site, then using it's proximity to the Woodbridge runway is not evidence of a lost nuke. It's fake. Hence, no need for "all the massive floodlights". Using lots of flood lights at the FAKE site just calls attention to something going on.

I suppose the argument could be made that a lot of flood lights* were used at the FAKE site to give credence to the FAKE site, but then the flood lights can't also be used as evidence for a nuke recovery operation. Are the lights at the fake site to lend credence or is the fake site the real site of the lost nuke? Which brings up the gieger counter:

And why else would Halt have his Geiger counter with him ?? Why take a Geiger counter to debunk a UFO ? In fact, why even be out there at all at 3am, on a cold winter night, with Geiger counter, floodlights, a team of at least 5 people, and relaying everything back to base, just to dismiss some 'lights in the woods' ?

IF the Halt recording is just a performance as a diversion from a lost nuke, why the F*&$ take a Geiger counter along?! And talk about it? As you noted above, the fact that Halt had a Geiger counter is evidence that there was a lost nuke. But also according to you, Halt's recording doesn't take place where the nuke was lost, it's part of a diversion and cover story. So, again, why take the one piece of equipment that signals Halt is looking for something radioactive, if the whole point of the exercise is to divert any interest in a lost radioactive object. Make absolutely no sense.

* Looking through the transcripts of Halt's recording, I'm not convinced there were "massive floodlights". There is mention of a Sergeant Bustinza over the radio, but it's unclear where he is.

GARBLED SECURITY COMMUNICATION AND BACKGROUND VOICES (includes: 'Six... Sergeant Bustinza Security Control... that's mark one of the pod... pod number…')

SECURITY COMMUNICATION: Sergeant Bustinza – Security Control.

Then what appears to be someone over there radio claiming to be out of gas, possibly for 1 light-all, at the East gate:

SECURITY COMMUNICATION (includes 'Sergeant Bustinza... We're outta gas...Security-6 boarding...East Gate').

Then some more stuff about a light-all with gas at the East gate:

RADIO COMMUNICATION (BUSTINZA?): Do you happen to have a Light-all?

GARBLED SECURITY COMMUNICATION (Includes: 'East Gate security... Security Six... have a light-all with gas...please.')

There is no indication that the light-all in question, if it had a gas, left the East gate and was moved into the forest. All during this time Halt is concerned with readings on the Geiger counter.

That's it. That's all there is about light-alls on the Halt recording. At best there might have been a light-all with gas at the East gate. No mention of one in the forest. The rest of the recording clearly indicates Halt and his men are using flashlights and/or farting around with a night vision Starscope:

ENGLUND: Right on this position here. Straight ahead, in between the trees – there it is again. Watch – straight ahead, off my flashlight there, sir. There it is.

HALT: Well douse flashlights then. Let's go back to the edge of the clearing so we can get a better look at it. See if you can get the Starscope on it.

HALT: Keep your flashlights off. There's something very, very strange. Get the headset on, see if it gets any stronger.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Seriously ?? Penniston claims a 9 foot wide metallic craft on the forest floor that he walks around ( how does one do that with a lighthouse ) and touches and feels it is warm, and notes strange markings on it.

None of that is in Sgt. Penniston's original statement.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm not insisting on a dropped bomb. That is merely one explanation.

Well shit. I guess, disregard my previous post above. I didn't know that the whole Broken Arrow theory you outlined in detail was just "one explanation". In that case, so is the light house.

Seriously ?? Penniston claims a 9 foot wide metallic craft on the forest floor that he walks around ( how does one do that with a lighthouse ) and touches and feels it is warm, and notes strange markings on it.

As you say, "seriously"? Penniston made NO such claims at the time. He said he never got within 50 meters of the whatever it was. These embellishments were added years and decades later, many after hypnotic memory recovery, a notoriously unreliable technique. New memories are a standard in UFO stories.

This does not bode well for the upcoming Capel Green. The non-evidenced, yet canonical myths about Roswell, like the recovery of alien bodies, are all the result of "new witnesses" being tracked own and now "remembering" things for 20, 30, 40 years ago. I suspect we'll see some not-quite -drooling octogenarians recounting their confabulations and dim memories of a minor event in 1980.

 

[Scaramanga]

But the "infamous 'landing site" that "just happens to align within a few degrees of the runway", means nothing IF in fact it's a fake landing site created as a diversion. IF it's a fake landing site, then using it's proximity to the Woodbridge runway is not evidence of a lost nuke. It's fake. Hence, no need for "all the massive floodlights". Using lots of flood lights at the FAKE site just calls attention to something going on.

I suppose the argument could be made that a lot of flood lights* were used at the FAKE site to give credence to the FAKE site, but then the flood lights can't also be used as evidence for a nuke recovery operation. Are the lights at the fake site to lend credence or is the fake site the real site of the lost nuke? Which brings up the gieger counter:

According to the records, the police were called a mere 17 minutes after some captain 'terminated' the Penniston/Burroughs exploration of the forest. Very oddly, the police report makes no mention of who at Bentwaters made the call, and makes no mention of the police ever meeting or speaking to any of the witnesses...which you'd think would be a fundamental thing for establishing where to look !

The police leave, and report 'negative result'. Not surprising, as it seems no-one was there to meet them....a bit odd. But, the police are then called again at 10.30am....to have a look at spurious 'markings in the wood'. That is when we get the infamous photo of the markings. But, the person who 'found' the markings was not Penniston or Burroughs or Cabansag but likely Captain Mike Verrano. What on earth was a member of Bentwaters ( a base to the north ) doing rummaging through the forest looking for markings....when Penniston had not yet given a report on what happened !

So, the 'landing site' is actually not even determined by anyone who was actually there at the time. Its as if someone was determined to draw attention to a specific location, even to the extent of calling the police twice.

 

[Scaramanga]

None of that is in Sgt. Penniston's original statement.

So what ? It's in the Halt memo..

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halt_Memorandum.jpg

 

[Scaramanga]

As you say, "seriously"? Penniston made NO such claims at the time. He said he never got within 50 meters of the whatever it was. These embellishments were added years and decades later, many after hypnotic memory recovery, a notoriously unreliable technique. New memories are a standard in UFO stories.

No they weren't made years later. The claims of 'a triangular metallic object 3 meters across and 2 meters high, with pulsating red and blue lights, which illuminated the entire forest with a white light'....are right there in the Halt memo written just 2 weeks later.

 

[Scaramanga]

IF the Halt recording is just a performance as a diversion from a lost nuke, why the F*&$ take a Geiger counter along?! And talk about it? As you noted above, the fact that Halt had a Geiger counter is evidence that there was a lost nuke. But also according to you, Halt's recording doesn't take place where the nuke was lost, it's part of a diversion and cover story. So, again, why take the one piece of equipment that signals Halt is looking for something radioactive, if the whole point of the exercise is to divert any interest in a lost radioactive object. Make absolutely no sense.

Well...surely the first question to ask is why does he even take a geiger counter along. In what conceivable way would NOT finding any radiation in the woods quell the UFO hysteria at the base ? I mean, nobody had ever said there was radiation associated with the object. And why did nobody ever measure Penniston or Burroughs for radiation either then or in the intervening period given their alleged close proximity to the object ?

I mean, you think Halt arriving back at base and saying ' nope...no radiation so the case is debunked ' would mean anything ? So again I ask...why does Halt take a geiger counter along ?

 

[Scaramanga]

This does not bode well for the upcoming Capel Green. The non-evidenced, yet canonical myths about Roswell, like the recovery of alien bodies, are all the result of "new witnesses" being tracked own and now "remembering" things for 20, 30, 40 years ago. I suspect we'll see some not-quite -drooling octogenarians recounting their confabulations and dim memories of a minor event in 1980.

I've seen previews and there are allegedly 22 new witnesses.

 

[MonkeeSage]

So what ? It's in the Halt memo..

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halt_Memorandum.jpg

It doesn't mention touching a warm object with strange symbols. The hypothesis that they mistook the lighthouse light shining through foliage for an object flying around and periodically emitting light is consistent with Halt's memo. The story about touching a craft with strange symbols is inconsistent with that hypothesis, but that story was not documented until years later and is contradicted by Penniston's original statement and the statement of Amn. Burroughs.