Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UFO Invasion at Rendlesham on the SCI FI channel (Live Thread)
www.scifi.com ^ | Friday, December 12, 2003 | Bryant Gumbel

Posted on 12/12/2003 5:37:54 PM PST by Momaw Nadon

About the Rendlesham Incident

In late December 1980, in Rendlesham Forest, England, numerous U.S. military personnel witnessed what has come to be regarded as the most significant military-UFO incident in the history of Great Britain.

The servicemen were posted to the RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge facilities — which together constitute one of the largest NATO bases in rural Suffolk, East Anglia — when, on December 27, they noticed unusual lights and activity near the base's back gate. A trio of security patrolmen led by Jim Penniston, thinking a military aircraft might be down or in distress, ventured into Rendlesham Forest to investigate. There they observed a variety of unearthly phenomena that none of them could explain, as well as an airborne object obscured by its own blinding light.

The next day, December 28, they returned to the forest and found three radioactive depressions in the ground where the object had been sighted. That night, other witnesses in surrounding areas saw an intense red light pulsating and moving through the trees.

Soon afterward, several of the men involved, including Airman Larry Warren, were debriefed by U.S. and British officers and ordered to sign documents contradicting their firsthand accounts. Furthermore, they were told to remain silent and were warned by U.S. military intelligence personnel that, if they didn't, "Bullets are cheap."

Two weeks after these incidents, Lt. Colonel Charles Halt (who retired years later following his promotion to colonel) wrote a memo detailing everything that the patrolmen had seen and sent the document to his superiors at the Pentagon — and the most comprehensive cover-up in the history of Britain began.

But the truth has refused to remain hidden. In December 2002, the British Ministry of Defense released a file on the Rendlesham incident that comprised 180 pages of previously classified memos, letters, reports and correspondence. But despite the British government's admission that a UFO-related incident took place near the Bentwaters and Woodbridge airfields in 1980, the U.S. government still refuses to release its own files about the encounter.

Now SCI FI brings you this shocking exposé, complete with documentation, new physical evidence and firsthand accounts by both military and civilian witnesses — including Penniston and Halt, who have jeopardized their reputations and military pensions in order to seek out the truth. Join host Bryant Gumbel as SCI FI presents its exclusive investigation of one of the most important UFO incidents of the 20th century.


TOPICS: Announcements; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Unclassified; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: alien; bentwaters; british; bryantgumbel; coverup; eastgate; england; evidence; expos; expose; firsthandaccounts; forest; halttape; incident; invasion; kecksburg; meninblack; mib; military; ministryofdefense; nato; pentagon; radioactive; raf; rendlesham; rendleshamforest; roswell; scifi; sighting; ufo; witness; woodbridge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-187 next last
To: BushMeister
I think Bryant Gumbel is doing those "in front of the base" speaking-to-the-camera shots at Floyd Bennett field in Brooklyn, NY. Either that or the Rendelsham base was built in exactly the same style.

41 posted on 12/12/2003 7:42:24 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
Now they are claiming that they principals were kidnapped by a mysterious private agency and injected with chemicals to make them sound stupid. Get real!!
42 posted on 12/12/2003 7:43:44 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
he could be a pathological liar, but he doesn't strike me as such.

So you believe that they were all kidnapped and injected with drugs by mysterious men?

43 posted on 12/12/2003 7:45:15 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
Now they are making up a story about they were at a different location -- a location that nobody knew about until just now, some 20 years later. A location, that -- get his -- that you cannot see the lighthouse from. And they are claiming that this new location proves they could not be confused over the lighthouse. Ha!

They're just looney and out to make a buck selling books.

44 posted on 12/12/2003 7:48:33 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
I don't care about the "aftermath". The initial report is what interests me.

Additionally, how could it be the lighthouse when the incident began because someone saw flashing, colored lights that indicated that perhaps something had crashed in the woods? IN THE WOODS, seen from OUTSIDE THE WOODS.

Are you claiming that some never-before-seen and never-again-seen weather phenomena was at work on TWO CONSECUTIVE NIGHTS to make the lighthouse appear to be an aircraft of impossible capabilities to dozens of observers from different angles?

Who's really grasping at straws and trying to fit square pegs in round holes now?

45 posted on 12/12/2003 7:48:54 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls; BushMeister
What is easy to believe is that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. Of course, whether or not alien life forms have visited here is open to conjecture, but there are surely plenty of reasonably convincing stories, albeit no publicly known "hard" evidence.
46 posted on 12/12/2003 7:50:29 PM PST by Sam Cree (democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I agree that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe, which consists of billions of galaxies which contain, on average, 100 billion stars apiece. I also believe that there are many exponential scientific advances of which we currently know nothing.

I don't know what happened at Rendelsham, and I'm quite aware of the possibility for lying, embellishing, and just plain mis-remembering after the fact by the witnesses.

I just don't see a huge airbase being sent into a tizzy by the same lighthouse they'd lived with for years ON A CLEAR NIGHT.

47 posted on 12/12/2003 7:56:04 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
I would like to think this is all true... sure would make life more interesting. I just wish the evidence were more convincing. If any of this is true, the credibility is shot the minute the loons open their mouths.
48 posted on 12/12/2003 7:56:13 PM PST by CurlyBill (Voter fraud is one of the primary campaign strategies of the Democrats!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
They never found anything crashed.

The initial sighting was by the gate guards looking eastward directly through the woods towards the lighthouse.

When they went towards the lights, the lights "receded". When they moved crosswise through the forest, the light moved with them (as the light from a distant lighthouse would do).

The most important evidence (the tape recording) shows their sightings match up precisely with the rotation of the lighthouse beam. Whenever the lighthouse beams sweeps over them, they shout "there it is again!"

The direction they claim to have seen stuff is precisely in line with both the Orfordness Lighthouse and the Shipwash Lightship.

They are embellishing their stories whenever someone pokes a hole in it.

And so forth.

49 posted on 12/12/2003 8:03:18 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill
I agree that the people interviewed in the program were at different levels of believability. I also believe that there's a very strange event at the center of it all.

I'm not a big sci-fi nut. I haven't put on that channel for years. But I'm glad I caught that show tonight, though it started off a bit like an MTV video (quick edits, cheesy graphics).

Try to get your hands on an old Unsolved Mysteries segment on triangular UFOs over Belgium, which included radar tapes and interviews with the Belgian Air Force personnel who scrambled to intercept. By far the most compelling piece I've seen on UFOs.

50 posted on 12/12/2003 8:03:45 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
You're still not accounting for the eyewitness accounts as to the motion of the object. And how the hell can you explain the "takeoff" of the object, or it's "burning" appearance. Once they supposedly got close, the object was CONTINUALLY IN VIEW. It didn't come and go, as a sweeping lighthouse would.

And you still haven't addressed the one-time nature of the events, on a normal weather night. Why never before? Why never again?

51 posted on 12/12/2003 8:08:02 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
"I just don't see a huge airbase being sent into a tizzy by the same lighthouse they'd lived with for years ON A CLEAR NIGHT"

Yeah, true, doesn't make much sense.

My personal wish is that aliens are not here, as my incination is to be scared of them. Not to mention what public knowledge of such a thing could do to the stock market :-D

But seriesly, they could be around. I am not confident that what we consider to be the laws of physics are the final word on the subject.

52 posted on 12/12/2003 8:08:41 PM PST by Sam Cree (democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
It wasn't clear. It was cloudy.
53 posted on 12/12/2003 8:08:48 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
The "burning appearance" was because they were using nigh-vision scopes. If you have ever used one, you will see distortions that can appear to be pulses and burning.
54 posted on 12/12/2003 8:11:08 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
"I used to believe in this stuff until I realized that with more people, increased worldwide development, airliners, and media ( just to name a few things ) than ever before, "real sightings" should be a common occurrence."

There are, on average, a few hundred sightings reported each month in the United States alone. Does that qualify as "common?"

55 posted on 12/12/2003 8:11:44 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
It was the lighthouse!!

Can a lighthouse leave identical depressions on the ground in a triangular pattern where the craft/object was seen?

Do lighthouses show up on radar?

Do lighthouses cause elevated levels of radiation at the reported landing site?

56 posted on 12/12/2003 8:14:57 PM PST by Momaw Nadon (Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
There are, on average, a few hundred sightings reported each month in the United States alone. Does that qualify as "common?"

And on December 26th, there will be millions of children reporting that they saw Santa Claus the night before. And that is on just one night.

57 posted on 12/12/2003 8:15:03 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
"It was the lighthouse!!"

What impressed me most was the Sgt's saying that he walked around the object and touched it. He said it was smooth like glass and warm. This has nothing to do with a lighthouse, he either saw what he said, or he didn't.

58 posted on 12/12/2003 8:18:20 PM PST by lstanle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Do lighthouses cause elevated levels of radiation at the reported landing site? The radiation readings have been debunked! The reported readings were 10 times the actual radiation. This matches with normal background radiation. But no one knows for sure because the meter wan't being used properly.
On the 'point five scale', it's obviously impossible to obtain a reading greater than 0.5 mR/h. This has been substantiated. That could only have occurred if the AN/PDR-27 setting was 'X10 between 0-5 milliroentgens', or higher. However, Halt confirms they were utilising, as we would expect, the most sensitive setting.

Consequently, the 'minor clicks' and levels of 'up to seven clicks' etc. which were being observed on the 'point five scale' must have been between 0.05 and 0.07 mR/h.

Background radiation. Which might have been slightly elevated because Bentwaters was a nuclear weapons storage base.
59 posted on 12/12/2003 8:22:19 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
I could have sworn I heard them say it was clear and 32-degrees. In any event, clouds wouldn't have been between the lighthouse and the observation point in the woods.

Yes, I have looked through night vision devices, and have no idea how someone could mistake a sweeping lighthouse beam for a stationary object on fire.

You know what? The Sci-Fi people should have waited until nightfall, shot some footage of the lighthouse beam playing through the woods (if it's still operable) and let the viewer decide if grown men with serious military responsibilities would have thought they were within a few feet of an unprecedented air craft based upon what we see.

My guess is no.

If the lighthouse is inoperable, they (SciFi) should have paid to fire it up.

Col. Halt also (in his initial memo) assigned dimensions to the craft he saw, and said that it went back and forth. Not consistent with a sweeping beam.

Why do you ignore the factor of many witnesses from different angles seeing inexplicable phenomena (all of whom were familiar with the lighthouse and its location)? Or the fact that the phenomena was not repeated, though the lighthouse was still in operation, and the base patrolled in the same manner?

60 posted on 12/12/2003 8:25:08 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-187 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson