Saturday, April 15, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - John Burroughs

John Burroughs, of Rendlesham Forest fame, was my guest. We focused, quite naturally, on the December, 1980, sightings there and what all happened from his perspective. You can listen to the program here:

John Burroughs
I, for a long time, had been confused about the number of days over which the events took place. I had asked Jim Penniston, John Burroughs and Charles Halt that very question and I believe I now know the answer. There were events on three days. On two of them, the first and the last, several members of the security force were involved, and on the middle day, there were only two people were ventured outside the perimeter. From Penniston’s point of view, there were but two days. He and Burroughs were involved on them. But, from the overall perspective (or to get overly punny about it, from A Different Perspective) there were three days. In their book, Encounter in Rendlesham Forest, it is laid out so that all this becomes clearer.

I did ask about the interrogations, but John said he had no real memories of this. He did acknowledge that he had undergone hypnotic regression in an attempt to remember more of what had happened. And we learned, of course, that he now receives VA compensation for service connected disabilities.

This interview is in stark contrast to those provided by Charles Halt. And there are still questions about what had happened, but the real story here might be the reaction of the authorities to the events rather than the events themselves.

Next weeks’ guest: Chase Kloetzke

Topic: MUFON’s Special Assignment Team


Paul Young said...

Another excellent interview. Quite a lot to digest. My initial take away from this is...

1, It seems clear (and I know a lot of people have been telling me this for years now) from this interview, and other information mentioned on KR's blog in the last few months, that Larry Warren seemed to have taken Adrian Bustinza's story and injected himself into his place.
Considering Bustinza claimed Warren came with him when he returned to the scene with replacement light-alls, but no one else, including Burroughs, saw him...I can only imagine that Bustinza was actively happy for Warren to replace him in the story.

2. Halt is part of the cover up.

Much of the early investigations by Jenny Randles and co were hampered by the fact that Halt inserted the wrong date into his memo...
It always bothered me that someone relied upon to be deputy commander of a nuclear weapons storage base could get something as fundamental as a date wrong! I now believe it was no was intended. Obfuscation intended to complicate the timeline.
I mentioned on an earlier Kevin Randle blog that Halt seemed overly hostile to anyone who doesn't swallow the "Gospel according to Halt".

If Burroughs and Bustinza's (via Warren's) account of the 3rd night is correct...then a hell of a lot happened that night that Halt has tried to suppress.
That's understandable I suppose...A career serviceman on a Colonel's pension would be tempted to only tell what he's told to tell.'s pretty despicable to go on every tv and radio show under the sun and claim that these people telling that story are liars...or...insane due to a tough de-brief.
It also would explain why he seems to not have been de-briefed. He didn't need to be...he was "in on the act"

3. Burrough's holds Pennistone in about as much contempt as I do, concerning the (new improved) binary code bollocks.

(But he was far too polite to specifically say that)

4, When a subject of an intense military de-brief / interrogation, can't even be certain if he was (or wasn't) debriefed / interrogated...then we know the interrogators are damned good at their job.
No wonder the RI main players all seem to be barking mad.

Paul Young said...

Kevin Randle...,"I, for a long time, had been confused about the number of days over which the events took place."

You're not alone. The timeline has always been all over the place. No one seems to have gotten to grips with it.
As an aside, the Rendlesham Incident really could do with an updated overview...much along the lines of your "Roswell in the 21st century" ???

John Banner said...

One thing that caught my attention during this interview was that fact that Burroughs was suggesting that Halt is not being totally open (aka honest). I'm not sure whether others caught that or not but several times towards the end of the interview (I believe) comments were made in regards to Halt changing his 'tune' in regards to Bustinza's presence on various nights. The way Burroughs expressed his opinion, he implied, at least in my mind, that Halt was hiding something.

I also get the feeling that there is quite a bit of tension among all of the key players to this story. Even Burroughs is distancing himself from Penniston due to what appears to be embellishment of his story.

Extremely interesting case and thought provoking case, however.

albert said...


Thanks for posting you latest interviews on youtube again. I was unable to get the libsynpro stuff to run on any of my three browsers. Perhaps it's Windows-centric.

. .. . .. --- ....

cda said...

There is nothing wrong about the timeline, once the initial date was correctly determined (from police logs I believe). Halt wrote his memo nearly 3 weeks afterwards (!), a long enough delay for him to easily get it wrong by one day. Christmas and New Year festivities, with a bit of alcohol maybe, would have helped.

And no, there is absolutely no need (unless you are a conspiracist) to suggest Halt deliberately inserted a false date.

And if someone wants to claim Halt DID insert a wrong date for the affair, why stop there? Halt MAY have made up some or all of the sighting details as well. In which case the whole thing becomes useless as a reliable UFO report.

Conspiracy and cover-up know no bounds where UFOs are concerned.

Paul Young said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Steiger said...

For once I find myself in agreement with cda. Although Colonel Halt's mistaken date entry is troubling, it is understandable given the time lag between the events and his writing of the memorandum of the events.

While there are some disagreements among three of the primary witnesses (Halt, Penniston, and Burroughs) to the events, they are for the most part superficial. All three of these witnesses maintain there was an ET presence in and about Rendlesham Forest in late December 1980. They further agree that the skeptical arguments in favor of a meteor, rabbit diggings, lighthouse beacon, and stars in the sky do not adequately account for nor sufficiently explain the events that they witnessed.

Paul Young said...

cda..."Halt wrote his memo nearly 3 weeks afterwards (!), a long enough delay for him to easily get it wrong by one day."

Considering this must have been the most peculiar thing that Halt had ever witnessed, do you honestly believe he put it out of his mind for three weeks and only recorded the event when someone prompted him to do it?
RAF Bentwaters would most definitely have had an incident log book that Halt would have been obliged to, at least, mention the event in...and on the same day it happened.

Are we to presume a busy man like the deputy commander of a nuclear warhead storage base didn't use a diary? (And alongside the real important stuff, like his wife's birthday, etc...he might have even noted this incredible thing that had just happened to him in it???)

When I've heard Halt during various interviews, he always makes out that he was asked to make a report to the MOD...and he tries to give the impression that he just fired one off... almost like a "post it" note that you would stick on your fridge.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that Halt didn't realise this was a big event that was going to be scrutinised by both UK and US military?
He would have thought long and hard about what he was going to put in his report...and that included how he was going to date the event.

Lance said...

Here on display is the classic believer fallacy of assuming that witnesses can be trusted to know how to describe things they see in the sky.

Ian Ridpath's site details the skeptical case against this likely non-event.

I have never seen anyone offer careful refutation of his work. Instead believers argue about silly points as above and make dishonest dismissals (like "it wasn't a lighthouse").

Here we have a case with a main witness (Penniston) whose story is so stupid that it is an insult to anyone's intelligence to even discuss it. And everything else leads towards the prosaic DESPITE the pious religious assertions above.

albert said...

That Burroughs distanced himself from Penniston is not surprising; it shows he's got his head on straight. That he has some problems with Halts testimony tends to support some questions posed by commenters here. Burroughs also refused to give his opinion of what the thing was.

But to me, the most interesting comment by Burroughs is his statement about "advanced technologies" in the 80's (35:25). Go back and listen.

. .. . .. --- ....

cda said...


You must realise that if the USA can have Roswell, the UK can likewise have its own 'Roswell', i.e. Rendlesham. You may, if you wish, put the last four letters in capitals.

KRandle said...

Lance -

I am still unsure why you find it necessary to be so harsh. You can make your point in a cordial fashion.


Is this really the UK's Roswell? It involved American airmen stationed on an American base, though it did take place in an English forest... seems ownership is somewhat muddied, but then it is a UFO case.

I will also note that I'm not overly bothered by the wrong date on the document and if you listen to Halt, he wasn't overly happy about having to draft the letter. While it seems strange that he didn't look at a calendar to get the correct date, and given the timing, it would seem that he would remember the date, this struck me as just something to be completed and moved to someone else's desk as quickly as possible.

albert -

I caught that too... about the technology and that Burroughs didn't actually think that it was extraterrestrial. I thought that was an interesting point.

Lance said...

Aw Kevin,

If folks had been a bit more critical of bad thinking and bad evidence in the 80 years of nothing that is the sum total of UFO research, the world would probably be a better place.

Again, Ian Ridpath has addressed every aspect of the case and the response has been silence.

Paul Young said...

Lance..."Here on display is the classic believer fallacy of assuming that witnesses can be trusted to know how to describe things they see in the sky."

You're forgetting, conveniently, that witnesses also describe a landed object...or one hovering a few feet above the ground.

Lance..."Ian Ridpath's site details the skeptical case against this likely non-event.

I have never seen anyone offer careful refutation of his work. Instead believers argue about silly points as above and make dishonest dismissals (like "it wasn't a lighthouse").

You you're acting all daft.
Ridpath is a pure debunker. His explanations for the RI make Hynek look like a debunking amatuer. (I bet he had wished he had thought up something as ridiculous as a "lighthouse" instead of "swamp gas" or "Venus" etc.)

Lance..."Here we have a case with a main witness (Penniston) whose story is so stupid that it is an insult to anyone's intelligence to even discuss it."

Can't argue with you on that point.
Penniston's reputation, since trying to embellish his binary code story, is in tatters...beyond repair.
We know he was present at the first night's event because of Burrough's and Edward Cabansag's testimony, but everything else that Penniston says can no longer be taken as truthful.
As an reliable witness, he has self destructed.

cda said...

Poor old Rendlesham. Like Roswell it has its band of noisy supporters, its band of not-so-noisy supporters and its band of couldn't-care-lesses.

Like Roswell it is (so it is claimed) the subject of an official cover-up, altered testimony, lies, endless rumors, strange markings on the ground and even 'bodies'.

And again, like Roswell, there is zilch, absolutely zilch, in the official files to give anyone the slightest reason to believe it was an ET visit.

But it continues to fascinate. And doubtless will do so until the end of time.

As Gilles would say, that's ufology.

Lance said...

Thanks for demonstrating the point, Paul.

I posted a link to Ian's site so that so that folks could see how Ian had collected and presented the data to support his position.

Paul used the highest standard of UFO science to dismiss this by simply calling Ian a debunker.

Does that kind of "thinking" not rattle you more than my own harshness, Kevin?

It should.

UFO proponents often lament how science won't look at their tawdry worthless data. Can there be any wondering why?

For many folks like Paul, this is a religion and calling someone a heretic is enough to dismiss their opinions among the truly righteous believers. But outside the church, people just point and laugh.


albert said...

@Paul Young, et al,

"...Penniston's reputation, since trying to embellish his binary code story, is in tatters...beyond repair...."

Agreed. I don't recall the date of Pennistons 'binary code' reveal, in relation to the incident. Given the location and the political situation at the time, it's seems likely that extreme measures may have been taken by the IC, including hypnosis. Once a susceptible
subject is engaged, all bets are off regarding any testimony presented. This suspicion would be negated by a confession from Penniston, that is, if he made up the story. Then again, he may actually -believe- it.

I'm not sure if there is, or will ever be, any information on the 'advanced technology' developed in the area at the time.

Perhaps Nick Pope would look into this?

. .. . .. --- ....

Paul Young said...

Albert..."I'm not sure if there is, or will ever be, any information on the 'advanced technology' developed in the area at the time.

Perhaps Nick Pope would look into this?

As far as British Ufology goes, Nick Pope has never brought anything new to the table.
I remember the fanfare when it first came out that this guy from the MOD UFO desk was going to "spill the beans"
Unfortunately, he hasn't told us anything that wasn't already in one of Tim Good's or Jenny Randles' books. (In fact, that's probably where he gets his information.)

Yep, it seems he worked in the UFO office, but I expect he was the "tea wallah"

Anyway Albert...I suppose we can still hope! :-)

Mirageman_ATS said...

Hi Kevin/All,

I often read this blog (keep up the good work Kevin) but I've never commented here. However Rendlesham is a topic I've looked into for a while. In recent years it's apparent to me that whatever happened, probably lies between nothing much at all, and some kind of black ops, or weapon technology that the airmen stumbled upon.

In the decades that followed the incident what is noticeable is:

Burroughs has long found the accounts of the other three witnesses different to his own.

Warren's story is probably now totally shot because of personal credibility problems .But mainly because Adrian Bustinza appeared on John's radio show in Aug 2015 and virtually wrote him out of the story.

Penniston originally reported he never came closer than 50m to (what he thought was) a craft in his original witness testimony. But as the years passed this developed into a 45 min photography/sketch session of a craft and a machine to homo-sapien download of binary codes. Those binary codes gave co-ordinates to mystical sites around the planet. Problem is they were also lifted from a website

Halt does seem to try and control the whole narrative as John pointed out in your interview. I also find it strange that if something serious happened, as Halt has long implied, (like a threat to the nuclear ordnance on the base and a beam of light landing at his feet) that the only action a Deputy Base Commander would take is to wander around the woods and then pack up and go back to base.

Then after a meeting a day or two later with superiors a decision is made to leave it all for the RAF liaison officer to get back from Christmas holidays (13th Jan 1981 some two weeks+ later). So obviously not really that important. Halt ,not the base commander, then sends an inaccurate account in a memo to the MoD. A memo that doesn't actually ask for any response despite Halt crying the MoD did nothing with it. It has the wrong date of the events and gives the impression they all happened on the same night if you study it.

Colonel Halt just wrote everything up off the cuff from memory as he nonchalantly describes. Do we really believe he couldn't be bothered to consult his Halt tape(s) or base records which were surely to hand? He'd been discussing things in meetings with his superiors and interviewing the witnesses in the days that followed. He's on record confirming that. The Halt Tape and witness statements are in the public domain. I would say that is more than a memory lapse. It's intended deception.

There are other witnesses saying they saw strange lights hovering in the skies above the bases. One in the observation tower while Halt and his team were trekking around the woods. Yet despite the drama developing in front of them no one did anything about it! Everyone basically just watched the light show.

So thank God a Soviet SpetzNatz team hadn't been deployed into Rendlesham Forest that night. Otherwise I might be typing this up in Russian now!

I could go on and on. But there is a massive thread about it all on ATS :
Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980

If you can't be bothered reading it all. Then here's a free pdf about it as well.
Specs Lies & Binary Codes

John Steiger said...

Lance -- When you state "I have never seen anyone offer careful refutation of his work. Instead believers argue about silly points as above and make dishonest dismissals (like "it wasn't a lighthouse")," you are full of absolute crap, and you know it!

Halt/Hanson, Pope/Burroughs/Penniston, and Georgina Bruni all thoroughly refute and disparage Ridpath's analysis of the event in their writings. P.S. I've met the gentleman, and Sgt. Penniston is not stupid.

Mr. Mirageman: "Burroughs has long found the accounts of the other three witnesses different to his own." Really? He co-wrote a book with Penniston! Suggest you look it up.

cda: You suggest capitalizing the last four letters of RendleSHAM ??? L-A-M-E!

I'll end with the following quote from Colonel Halt: "A lighthouse doesn’t move through a forest, doesn’t explode, doesn’t change shape, [and] doesn’t send down beams of light.’
Nick Pope, OPEN SKIES, CLOSED MINDS, p. 149.

Dr. Randle: Thank you for allowing this refutation of skeptical fallacy as regards Rendlesham Forest.

KRandle said...

Lance -

Didn't really think of calling someone a "debunker" as harsh. Can't tell you number of times I've been called that... Stan Friedman once called my an anti-abductionist propagandist. While I would object to the propagandist I do fall into the skeptical category on abductions.

cda said...

Further to what I wrote earlier:

Why are there so many books and articles about both Roswell and Rendlesham? Both these cases seem (I have not actually counted them) to have generated a huge amount of literature of all kinds, plus tape recordings and maybe even films.

Some will say that this goes to prove there MUST have been something substantial in both events. But an alternative is that there are simply too many cooks spoiling the broth, and that each cook is largely copying one or more of the others in the process.

Officially, neither case has any value to science whatever.

But I cannot see either case ever dying out.

Lance said...


You misunderstand, I don't care what true believers call skeptics. I'm happy to be called a debunker! The point is that people like Paul think that simply doing that is the same as arguing the actual points of the case. And the same type of believer will then complain how science won't look at his crappy evidence for his silly religion.

Again, Ian carefully lays out the evidence and the response is to say, aw he is just a debunker.

KRandle said...

Ahh -

I get it. You don't believe the argument is won by suggesting someone is a debunker as if that negates any point of view other than your own. I just ignored that and moved to the evidence. The point that seemed to have been lost was the Burroughs didn't suggest something alien but something advanced technologically but based on this planet. That, to me, was one of the most important things he said.

Mirageman_ATS said...

John Steiger said...."Mr. Mirageman: "Burroughs has long found the accounts of the other three witnesses different to his own." Really? He co-wrote a book with Penniston! Suggest you look it up."

Mr Steiger what point are you trying to make? Have you not actually read the book "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest"?

It is quite clear that if you read Chapter 1 - Ground Zero the differences in what Burroughs and Penniston recall are quite apparent. Despite being only a few yards apart Burroughs has no memory of Penniston getting near to a craft, touching it, photographing it or receiving a binary data dump from it.

Burroughs disputed Penniston's story before hand in 2006 he said:

I will also say Penniston and Halt have also have hurt the case . Penniston by the way his story has grown and Halt from the beginning putting the wrong dates on his memo holding onto important evidence and getting witness to change or withdraw their stories

See : Source

And on Kevin's radio show John clearly states some of the problems with Penniston's story (very tactfully but he does) and distances himself from the binary nonsense. In fact he and Jim no longer seem to communicate with each other.

I'd suggest you listen to it!

Another show where Jim Penniston goes into full mental meltdown is
Angelia Joiner Interview. He even admits he knew what the binary codes meant before they were decoded!!

Nitram Ang said...


If someone thinks there could be life on other planets does that make them a crazy saucer believer?

What is also quite clear however is that you don't understand the difference between a "skeptic" and a "debunker".


KRandle said...

Nitram -

That seems overly snarky as well. It is clear to me that Lance knows the difference between a debunker and a skeptic. I think we toss around the word, "debunker" as little more often than necessary.

John Steiger said...

Mr. Miragemen: I do not dispute that Penniston and Burroughs are different people and therefore naturally have some different recollections from a common experience. I do dispute that given Burroughs' state of conciousness (or lack thereof) on the first night, that this in any way negates from Penniston's testimony as to what Penniston himself experienced. Admittedly Burroughs may not be able to support all of Penniston's testimony, but at the same time Burroughs is unable to negate Penniston's testimony either. At some point of the encounter, Burroughs was simply no longer aware of the events which were occurring.

I have listened to Kevin's radio interview of Burroughs twice now (thank you for inspiring me!) Burroughs does not declare the binary code to be nonsense as you describe it. In addition, it is speculation on your part that Burroughs and Penniston "no longer seem to communicate with each other" as their intercommunication or lack thereof is not referenced in the interview.

Thank you for supplying the Angelia Joiner interview of Penniston -- I will listen to it.
Burroughs' opinion from 2006 (or whatever date) is simply that -- his OPINION. I believe that Burroughs has a problem with authority figures (such as Col. Halt), which may very well be justified ... or not. I will also say that some of what Burroughs speaks to in this interview is speculative -- whereas I try to base my conclusions on what the witness knows.

Finally, I consider John Burroughs to be a hero for coming forth as he has (where others have not).

Paul Young said...

Lance..."For many folks like Paul, this is a religion..."

And there's me thinking that I'm only a moderate "ETH'er"! Personally, I only consider Roswell, Kelly Siege (a much under rated case), Zamora incident,RI, JAL1628...the abductions of Walton (then again, those poor aliens could be forgiven for thinking this nutter was trying to storm their saucer)..and Alan Godfrey to be feasible.

But...getting back to Ridpath...

Lance..."Again, Ian carefully lays out the evidence and the response is to say, aw he is just a debunker.

To clarify, I don't think he is "just a debunker". I'd describe him as a Debunker Turbo GTi. Most of that nonsense he spouts to explain away the RI would have made Philip Klass blush!

Strewth...fireballs, flashing light on a patrol car, Russian sat re-entry and other space debris.(didn't he mention once some drongo driving around the forest in a pick-up full of fertiliser?)
I'm only surprised he didn't add that there was a plague of locust present!

If you believe this guy, then on those 3 nights that forest was busier than Piccadilly Circus.

LBP said...

Six or seven years ago, Burroughs and Penniston breathlessly contacted a friend of mine, who was once highly respected in the UFO community but is now widely dismissed as delusional, about the way the binary codes dovetailed with his thinking. I saw the emails. They struck me – and, surprisingly, even my friend – as having been written by two individuals who had gone pretty far off the deep end.

Rendlesham, like Roswell, is no longer even interesting to me in the sense of “what really happened.” It is, however, fascinating as a Rorschach test of sorts: The desperate need to believe on the part of many. The desperate need to disbelieve on the part of others. The desperate need to be someone, to have one’s 15 minutes of celebrity, to cash in on the events. The bizarre way the supposed events inevitably spiral out of control and take on a life of their own, growing like Topsy. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the fallibility of memory, the little corners of insanity that exist in the minds of even people who are mostly sane and credible. Pseudo-science masquerading as science. Real science descending to the level of pseudo-science. Rendlesham and Roswell have it all.

Someone should write a book not about what “really happened” at Rendlesham, but about why every significant UFO incident seemingly devolves into this sort of morass. The same thing happens in other areas of the anomalous, and even with things like the JFK assassination. The psychology and dynamics of it are really far more interesting than anything that happened at Rendlesham, precisely because it virtually guarantees that no one – even those who were there – will ever know what really happened at Rendlesham.

Anthony Mugan said...

The main point to me is why should anyone doubt that Rendlesham was originally a complex misidentification as outlined on Ian Ridpath's site at the reference given above by Lance?
It appears to have turned into something else with all the later elaborations to the story, but if Remdlesham is to be taken seriously the question is what evidence is there that would falsify the scenario proposed by Ridpath?

Personally I don't think there is anything to falsify it and the case should be recognised for what it is...a misidentification that has got out of hand with all the later elaboration of the story.

KRandle said...

Paul Young -

As I said to Lance, I'll now say to you... that seems a bit harsh. We can all make our points without being quite so snarky... Like Will McAvoy, I'm on a mission to civilize.

Mirageman_ATS said...

@ John Steiger

OK Mr Steiger. I think we both agree that the accounts differ. I can see that you are working your way through much of the information. You should check out the reports from Ed Cabansag, Fred A. Buran and J. D. Chandler in addition to Jim and John's from the 1st night if you haven't already. Strangely there are no statements available from the 2nd or 3rd nights .

I do not wish to waste time debating the minutiae of the case and the squabbling between witnesses (it has been going for decades). We all have our opinions on what may have happened and it is only right you make up your own mind.

The biggest question to me with Rendlesham is why the on duty senior officers really chose to do nothing at the time.

This was the height of the Cold War yet no one did anything more than call the local police (which would have been required due to the Status of Forces Agreement). Penniston sees a strange craft in a forest next to the base but keeps it secret. Halt, despite claiming that beams of light from 'objects' in the sky were shining down onto the bases containing sensitive ordnance and in front of his feet, also chooses to do nothing on the night. Suggesting to me that neither of them really were convinced there was any threat to their base or the integrity of the defence of the UK. Did no one consider a Soviet (or other threat) whatsoever? Was this really was of no defence significance to either the United Kingdom or the United States Air Force?

Did that mean it really wasn't much more than a few airmen goofing around off base to kill the boredom of Xmas on duty? Does it point to a secret military policy on dealing with UFOs? Or was something else going on?

Mirageman_ATS said...

I forgot to add that people may find it interesting that
The OKM company in Germany have a ground penetrating radar which depicts the very same symbols Jim Penniston claims to have touched on the 'craft of unknown origin'.

See image Click to view

According to his new co-author Gary Osborn, Jim even tried to instigate legal proceedings for using 'his' images against OKM. Did he design them?

Paul Young said...

Mirageman ATS..."The biggest question to me with Rendlesham is why the on duty senior officers really chose to do nothing at the time."

Pure speculation..
..but on the first night, Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansag stumbled onto this event with no pre-warning.
Penniston said that at the time he was anxious to underplay what had happened to possibly the rest of the staff at RAF Bentwaters base were not particularly alarmed or interested...or even properly informed...but the rumours were out.

But after the report from the second night came in, where this female officer freaked out over what she had seen (a baby foo-fighter casually flying through the cab of her Land Rover)...then that must have really grabbed the commands attention.

By the third night they were expecting something to happen.

Mirageman...has it ever bothered you that Halt was at a Christmas party one minute, then more or less instantaneously managed to get a posse together...armed with portable flood-lights...geiger counters, etc? And I don't know if you are old enough to remember but I don't recall people walking around with dictaphone's on a permanent basis back in 1980, like Halt is fond of telling us that he always did.
And has it ever bothered you that guys like Bustinza claim they were interviewed by US and UK "suits" almost as soon as they returned to the base? (Like the debriefers were already in situe?)
This speculation might answer the question of why "the on duty senior officers really chose to do nothing at the time"
They didn't have to. By the 3rd night it was already in hand???

Mirageman_ATS said...

Paul Young said...Mirageman...has it ever bothered you that Halt was at a Christmas party one minute, then more or less instantaneously managed to get a posse together...armed with portable flood-lights...geiger counters, etc? And I don't know if you are old enough to remember but I don't recall people walking around with dictaphone's on a permanent basis back in 1980, like Halt is fond of telling us that he always did.

I have heard Halt was actually out investigating on the 2nd night (26th into the morning of the 27th) before the incident with the female Lieutenant who left the Air Force shortly after from trauma. But Halt found little of consequence. He later claims that although he liked her he did not know what had happened to her until about a decade ago. I find that strange as a Deputy Base Commander would surely know any issues with personnel. But he could also have been trying to protect her and keep her out of the story. She has never gone public about it.

As to his posse. From what I can gather Lt. Bruce England was already on duty and reported the incident to Halt. Sgt. Adrian Bustinza was the on duty NCO, MSgt Bob Ball was the Shift Commander and also on duty. Monroe Nevels was the on call disaster preparedness officer and he also had been investigating sometime earlier on through the afternoon.

Someone had already given permission for the lightalls to be transported off base before Halt was called upon. An impending 'public relations disaster' if the Brits took umbrage at American servicemen on sovereign UK land without permission. So I don't think his gathering of a small team was particularly unusual. I was around in 1980 but still a schoolboy. I remember walkman's from around that era. So it may be rare to have dictaphone, but I don't see any reason to be suspicious about Halt possessing one.

I do find it odd, as John Burroughs mentions on Kevin's show, that there appears to be a long gap in the audio at around the time Bustinza and Burroughs approached the 'lights'. In fact there are only (supposedly) 17 mins of tape from around 4 hours of walkabout.

I do believe senior officers know a lot more about what was going on than we do. Watch this short 1min clip of Wing Cmdr. Gordon Williams and listen carefully to what he says about the incident.

Williams Interview

I believe he is using a code here and "Humpty Dumpty" refers to more than just having egg on his face. @Kevin, if you ever get John back on the show then I suggest you put this to him. He knows about the 'nursery rhyme' code names.

Brian Bell said...

Just some observations that a few others mentioned earlier, plus some thoughts about Burroughs.

First, I enjoyed Halt's interview because it was much better than most interviews I've heard him give prior to Kevin's show. Usually he's rather stiff.

And I think Burroughs was equally as good, and in some cases a bit better in regards to the information he brought out.

I agree that this entire case is a morass of folks who seem to be toying with the story so as to copy one another, out do each other, or position their experience as THE experience that best explains the event. It reaks of lies, infighting, and bizarre claims that have benefited the witnesses.

On Burroughs:

- Two others here already mentioned that Burroughs DOES NOT lean towards an ETH, but rather an ADVANCED military project deeply classified and likely used as a live, unannounced test on military responsiveness at USAF nuclear bases.

- He doesn't endorse Penniston's binary code material but rather politely dismisses it without making a big deal of it or criticizing Penniston directly.

- Both he and Halt do not believe (or can't recall) any post event "brainwashing" of the witnesses. That's significant because it suggests the others are making it up. Clearly Halt and Burroughs would have been included had there been any.

Finally, it is conceivable that Halt actually does know more about what was going on and in some way is still doing his duty to muddy the waters by criticizing the others as well as declare the very human event an ET event instead, so as to distract from the truth - the military tested a Psy-Ops weapon on its own people (as history shows they've done in the past).

Burroughs makes it clear that Halt's behaviors are oddly inconsistent and questionable.

Personally I believe this was either a misidentification enhanced by make-believe play later turned serious hoax because it brought more attention than expected, OR it really was a drill exercise pulled on personnel at Xmas time as means to evaluate their response to an unknown object. An object which in fact was a remotely controlled clandestine Psy-Ops weapon designed to cause panic or confusion.

John Steiger said...

Mr. Bell: Your statement above -- "It reaks [reeks?] of lies, infighting, and bizarre claims that have benefited the witnesses" is an apt description of the desperation of the skeptical
position with regard to explaining away Rendlesham Forest.

Thank you for making the point.

Brian Bell said...

@ John

Not certain about that John. You state (above) that it's "desperation of the skeptics" who make such comments, as myself.

Desperation about what? No one, including you, have any proof of what happened there. I mean nothing. We have "stories" which contradict each other. And that proves what?

One doesn't have to be a skeptic to realize there isn't enough information here to prove anything really. Certainly nothing that confirms contact with ETs or even time travelers or beings from another dimension.

They reported seeing something strange over several nights. That's about it.

John Steiger said...

Mr. Bell (Brian): But there is evidence of what occurred at Rendlesham Forest in late December, 1980. Besides multiple witness testimonies from many of whom should be considered reliable witnesses, there is the tape of events on the third night. There are physical depressions in an equilateral triangle formation in the forest where the craft stood along with broken branches from the tree canopy above. There are witnesses from the first night who experienced severe ill health effects as a result of their encounter and not as a result of their normal duties. In addition, the USAF has denied access to the men's medical records.

All this is far more than nothing. If you choose to deny such evidence as definitive proof, then my next question to you is are you capable or incapable of belief in nonterrestrial phenomena? Where is your faith?

cda said...


There is no way of knowing whether the ill health of anyone connected with the case was caused by the UFO event(s) or whether it was due to other causes. How long afterwards did these ill-effects show up? You talk about medical records. Such records are private and confidential. They would only be disclosed to outsiders in exceptional circumstances - such as for police and/or court orders.

The fact that these medical records were denied to other parties is absolutely useless as evidence that something highly unusual, such as an ET visit, took place on those nights.

KRandle said...


While you are correct that an individual's medical records are private, the problem here is that Burrough's records were classified and not released to him. The Air Force has agreed that his injuries are service connected and date back to December 1980. And, under normal circumstances those records can be released to others with the consent of the patient. These circumstances are quite unusual and are abnormal.