Ancient Aliens – Season 2, Episode 10: Rendlesham Excerpt (3oth Dec 2010)
The relevant section from Season 2 of the
History Channel’s “Ancient Aliens” (Episode 10):
Before I post anything regarding the recent binary-based announcements(!) I first wanted to say that somewhat predictably the BBC Suffolk’s earlier Rendlesham revelation was proved to be something of a non-event, which isn’t surprising when you consider that it was the same people who introduced and perpetuated the Conde practical joke theory back in 2003.
It all started back on the 30th October (2010) the BBC Suffolk Breakfast Show presenter ‘Mark Murphy’ posted an article on the official BBC Suffolk website titled, “Rendlesham UFO mystery solved?” before then proceeding to make reference to some remarkable *new* evidence:
“Now after 30 years, I’m hoping to reveal what happened in Rendlesham Forest and have joined up with the East Anglian Daily Times to finally uncover the events of December 1980. On the evening of Friday, 17 December at 7-9pm, I’ll be presenting a special programme on BBC Radio Suffolk from the Bentwaters Cold War Museum. I’ll be revealing new evidence that I believe will finally reveal the truth and put the conspiracy theories to bed for good.”
- Close by is a lighthouse which strobes brightly into the forest at low level;
- There was a brilliant meteor over southern England at the exact same time;
- The upper stage rocket of a Soviet satellite, Cosmos 749, had broken up on re-entry;
- One star was reported as being exceptionally bright between Christmas and New Year;
- Could the mysterious object have been one of the earliest trials of the Stealth bomber?
- Could it have been a US spy satellite dropped on Suffolk by mistake?
- On the ground, the “triangular” marks left at the landing site could simply be rabbit diggings and as for the radiation spikes, the readings taken were so low, they are insignificant.
- Get in contact and on Friday, 17 December, between 7-9pm, for the new evidence which I’m confident will change people’s opinions of what happened.
Roll on the 18th December and the much hyped revelation was as follows:
Mark Murphy’s favourite theory is that a dummy Apollo capsule was being carried through the forest by a helicopter. Some claim that the 67th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron based at RAF Woodbridge had a specific job of picking up spy satellites.
Graham Haynes, manager of the Bentwaters Cold War Museum (BCWM), said: “Apollo is the most plausible explanation. It’s about the same size as a lot of descriptions of the UFO…..They’d usually go out into the Deben or just off the coast at Bawdsey, drop the module into the sea and practise recovering astronauts from the module.”
However, there remains the grey area of whether, and why, a helicopter might be carrying the module around on Christmas day, but to some it is the most plausible theory. The US government has not commented on whether a helicopter flight took place. Some think airmen sent it up as a joke to add some ‘evidence’ of a craft to the sightings of strange lights.
Errol Frost, from BCWM, said: “The 67th, being hoaxers and technical jokers, thought they could make a UFO case…..Being Christmas, everyone’s merry, and that’s where it started.”
Mr Haynes said: “The first row of landing lights at Woodbridge were damaged that day…..It’s possible the capsule hit those lights, it started to sway under the helicopter and the pilot, thinking he was in trouble, decided to jettison the capsule.”
The capsule would then have been recovered from the forest a day later. This theory is used to support the discovery of three marks on the ground in the forest which some claim tally with the tripod feet on the capsule. Others claim the marks on the ground were consistent with the sort of marks made by rabbits. Yet another theory was broadcast by BBC Inside Out. In their report USAF security policeman claimed he had been driving around in a police car with his lights flashing.
Pope said: “There is a culture of practical jokes in the military, but I think we’ll still be debating this 40 years on.”
M’kay, the first thing that I personally thought was that this is really old news that was first posted on the Rendlesham Incident website back in July of 2007, here is a small excerpt from the article which was titled, “The Crucial Reason“:
What I will say is that 2 of my sources who are friends were in the 67th ARRS at RAF Woodbridge. RAF Woodbridge was home to the 67th ARRS (Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron). Their primary role was picking up pilots/crew who had either crashed landed or ejected (this included the F-111 escape capsule) both on friendly territory/sea and behind enemy lines. Their two main aircraft for this role was the HH53 ‘Jolly Green Giant’ helicopters and C130 Hercules fitted with ‘Skyhook’.
Their secondary role was the locating and recovery of Apollo command modules and other US space hardware that NASA and other departments in the USA wanted recovered after re entry. There was an Apollo command module at RAF Woodbridge for training purposes. It had lights that aided location & recovery. These would be either programmed or remotely switched on depending on the nature of recovery training. I’m also led to believe that it had a distress flare system that aided recovery at sea. It was also fitted with a homing radio beacon system. Some training consisted of dumping the module out at sea by helicopter day and night and another HH53 with trainees on board would go out to locate and recover it. There were other training exercises that remain classified.
Sea recovery entailed at least 2 divers in their diving suits as part of the recovery crew.
My source told me that 99% of airmen/officers at both bases would be unaware of its presence at Woodbridge, only the ARRS and a few other need to know people would be aware of its existence. It was stored under wraps in a secure building and was sat on a trolley so it could be wheeled out when needed for training. I was told it weighed about the same as a small family car. It was approximately the same size and pyramid shape that Jim Penniston and others described. It was also smooth to the touch as it had a ceramic type surface that was designed to withstand re entry heating. The nav lights were under the surface skin of the module and shone through Pyrex type glass panels. The module stood on 3 short legs with concave disc shaped feet.
And here’s the follow-up BBC Suffolk broadcast:
Anyhoo, on to the recent claims as to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the Rendlesham incident a conference was held on the 28th December 2010 which was billed as follows:
December 1980 – 30th Anniversary Conference
John Burroughs & Jim Penniston talk for the first time in Suffolk at the Woodbridge Community Hall Tuesday December 28 at 6pm.
Also attending is:
- Linda Moulton Howe
- Nick Pope (MoD ret)
- Peter Robbins US based Investigative Writer
In December 1980 strange lights were seen by US Air Force personnel posted to the twin bases of RAF Bentwaters & Woodbridge. To this day they have never been explained. On the 30th anniversary, December 28 2010 two key eye-witnesses are back in Suffolk to re-count their stories. Airman 1st Class John Burroughs and SSgt Jim Penniston were 81st Security Police Officers patrolling the East Gate at RAF Woodbridge when they observed what they initially thought was an aircraft coming down in the forest. The rest is history.
All five are in Suffolk on Tuesday December 28 2010.
Here’s a video from the night which was titled, “Nick Pope Apologizes to the Airmen involved in the Rendlesham Forest incident” :
Dave Hodrien from BUFOG attended the conference and posted a brief summary of the event which was as follows:
Peter Robbins began with a short introductory talk about the case in general and why it could not have been the result of certain things (the usual arguments against it – lighthouse, meteorite, and some of the more recent claims such as a burning fertilizer truck).
At the end of his talk he got Larry Warren up on stage as well to thank him for what he had done for the case.
Next up was Linda Moulton Howe, who spoke mostly of the recent regressions of both John and Jim and the possibility that more happened to them on the 1st night than just a close encounter. Obviously this depends on how you feel about regression in the first place, but there were numerous signs that John, possibly both of them had been abducted.
After a short break it was then time to welcome both John and Jim to the stage. I found them both to be very believable in their account of what took place, they seemed to certainly be talking from the heart and I would certainly dispute the idea that they are making up their encounters with the strange glowing lights/craft in the forest. They also spoke of something new which is about to break with the case, 8 pages of binary numbers that were apparently “downloaded” into Jim’s head.
Probably many of you will have already heard of this, and I apologise if someone’s already mentioned it elsewhere on here, but it’s the first I’d heard about it.
If you haven’t heard of this already, apparently the binary numbers translate to some kind of message which is going to be revealed in a History channel documentary airing tomorrow. This caused some backlash from the crowd who questioned why it was only coming out now so long after the incident, a valid point to make of course, but Jim’s answers to this seemed reasonable enough. Plus someone has tested the note paper and ink to prove he wrote it back in 1980. They wouldn’t reveal what the message was at all (due to wanting all the evidence to be shown at once, and also probably due to contractual obligations with the TV company), however we’ve only got to wait till tomorrow to find out.
Nick Pope gave a brief chat about the involvement of the MOD with the case, then there was a pretty extensive Q&A session. After that was over about 11.30pm many people then headed out to the forest.
It was very dark, cold and foggy which added to the atmosphere I thought. The camera crew who had been filming the conference continued filming, and I’d say there were about 100 people present.
We first headed for the East Gate, where Jim and John shared with everyone how they had first caught sight of the lights in the forest. We then backtracked to the edge of the trees by the visitors car park, where they continued to talk about their approach to the object and what they remembered taking place.
And of course the relevant section from Season 2 of the History Channel’s “Ancient Aliens” (Episode 10) as seen at the top of this post:
The analysis of Jim Pennistons Binary Numbers revealed that the sequence contained the following message:
EXPLORATION [OF] HUMANITY
52° 09' 42.532"N
13° 13' 12.69"W
FOR PLANETARY ADVAN[CE]
The coordinates point to a location off the coast of Ireland called HY BRASIL
Brazil (mythical island)
Brasil showing up on the map of Ireland by Abraham Ortelius in 1572 Brazil, also known as Hy-Brazil or several other variants, is a phantom island which features in many Irish myths. It was said to be cloaked in mist, except for one day each seven years, when it became visible but could still not be reached. It probably has similar roots to St. Brendan’s Island. The names Brazil and Hy-Brazil are thought to come from the Irish Uí Breasail (meaning “descendants (i.e., clan) of Breasal”), one of the ancient clans of Northeastern Ireland. cf. Old Irish: Í: island; bres: beauty, worth; great, mighty.
So of course the obvious question is, “What!! You’ve waited 29 years to release this material!?!” And actually here’s Penniston addressing that exact question (sort of…..)
And finally the talking-head (Nick Ciske) on the History Channel’s “Ancient Aliens” show has already provided enough information to prove that once again what the expert stated has been wildly misrepresented and took completely out of context so as to seemingly validate the new claims made by Penniston. UK UFO researcher Isaac Koi (pseudonym) was quick off the mark and contacted Mr Ciske with hours of the programme being aired and this is what Isaac wrote a little earlier today (31st December 2010) on the UK-UFO.org mailing list:
After watching the episode, I looked online for information about the chap (Nick Ciske) that used a computer to generate the “possible message” from the binary code. The first search result offered by Google (at the link below) is a tool for encoding and decoding binary code:
http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.phpThis is relevant to one of the questions below (Question 4). You may be particularly interested in the answer to that question. I contacted Nick Ciske about his work on the “possible message” and asked him a few questions. He was kind enough to answers them all. The questions I put (and Nick’s answers) are below.
Isaac : (1) Could you possibly outline how the “possible message” that appeared on your computer screen was generated?
Nick Ciske: 1. I used the same convertor I have on my site. [Isaac – see link above]
Isaac:2) The “possible message” you generated appears to be in English and I wonder if the receiver (and sender) would also have to be aware of any local/human conventions as to the translation of binary code into alpha-numerics (along the lines of the ascii convention)? If so, that would be relevant to the apparent suggestion by one of the other individuals interviewed for the documentary that binary code could be used as some sort of universal language.Nick Ciske: 2. Yes, you’d have to start with an English message. Binary is far from a universal language. I know I talked about that, but it may not have made the episode (I haven’t seen it yet). [Isaac – that bit did not make it into the episode and the documentary gave the opposite impression by only showing the bit from the other researcher I mentioned in my question]
Isaac : (3) In the documentary, in the frames before the display of the “possible message”, your computer screen appears to show “decodes to” followed by several lines of characters. What are those lines?Nick Ciske: 3. That’s the raw decode of the binary.
Isaac : (4) Could one of the online tools relating to binary code (including one that you appear to have developed) have been used in reverse to translate the relevant “possible message” into the binary code?Nick Ciske: 4. Yes, that’s exactly what my tool does, and the most plausible explanation for how the message was generated. [Isaac – This view was not shown in the documentary. Indeed, Nick’s comments as shown in the documentary implied that it would be difficult for someone to generate the relevant text. Nick is shown as saying “Could someone write out 6 pages of binary? Well, probably not. They would need some help or they would have to be some sort of savant or super calculator.”]
Isaac : (5) Finally, you apparently typed up the relevant pages of binary codes. Is that typed up list of numbers available to others?
Nick Ciske: 5. Sorry, the producers have asked me not to share it.
Alas, it seems that the only singular certain conclusion that can be drawn from all of these recent claims is that over the years the event now described by the witnesses is evidently a completely different one to which they described in their witness statements days after it originally occurred. As to the reasons for this? Well, I leave that up to the reader to draw their own conclusions…..
In fact, the original accounts have changed to such an extent that even the sketches have evolved as you can see above, with the one from Penniston’s original (& undated) witness statement being inset (red highlight) on one of his later ones.
Check out the original article here.
Author: Michael Naisbitt