Talk:Rendlesham Forest incident

The efforts to discredit tell us all we need to know

It's reassuring to see how much effort goes into trying to discredit the Rendlesham incident, especially given how paper thin the supposed explanations are. I say leave this page exactly as it is as an example of how badly the UK and US governments have papered over the cracks. My personal thoughts are that a UFO cover story was concocted right at the start to explain away a major emergency on the edge of the base. Something very embarrassing to the USA. Something involving a damaged nuke weapon in the woods for example. Rather than die down the story has grown wings over the year. While an outlandish story is good cover it attracts too much attention to Rendlesham/Bentwaters. 86.166.237.215 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

BBC News. Dec 2020. USAF guard John Burroughs

This is not currently referenced in the article.

. See quote (emphasis added):

One of those [USAF] guards was John Burroughs. He went to investigate the sighting, and says he first saw a beacon in the distance in the forest with green, red, orange and white lights.

As he and his colleagues approached, Mr Burroughs says they saw a white light silently explode and then a red, oval, sun-like object in the clearing. It lifted up through the trees and shot back towards the coast.

I like his attitude. He has some interesting theories. Read the article.

But that is not what is really important. What is important is what he saw. As to what it is that he saw, who knows. It's definitely not a lighthouse, star, fireball, etc. that causes what he saw. Stars don't change directions. Fireballs may explode, but don't show up in a clearing, and then lift up and shoot towards the coast. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rendlesham Forest incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." --Lubiesque (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This article can be improved by reporting what one of the witnesses, A USAF guard, saw. From a reliable source, the BBC News. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

John Burroughs medical disability due to Rendlesham events

In 2015, the U.S. government made an unprecedented move by acknowledging the health issues of former Airman First Class Burroughs, resulting from his encounter with a UAP in England's Rendlesham Forest in December 1980. The decision to grant Burroughs total medical disability by the Veterans Administration (VA) not only recognizes the reality of the phenomenon, but also highlights the potential health consequences of such encounters.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Rendlesham Forest UFO incident digital CCBY artwork.jpg

Illustration roughly matching Penniston's descriptions.

Timeshifter, that's a good find. Somebody please add it. Here's additional sources one two

But the real problems started in 2011, when doctors were astonished after the mithral valve of his heart had failed - something which usually happens to men much older than 50-year-old Burroughs. […] Finally, Burroughs' legal team found two documents from the British Ministry of Defence which showed high levels of radiation were detected at the site where he encountered the mystery UFO. The US Veterans Association and Department of Defence then agreed to pay for his treatment.

Also the article is not well-illustrated. On the right is an image that could be added with some explanatory caption. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Burroughs was paid off by the Veterans Association, but that does not prove his medical disability was due to the Rendlesham incident. What about everyone else who was out there, and for longer? Even Halt now admits there was nothing unusual about the radiation levels. If there had been, the whole area would have been closed off.Skeptic2 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Because the radiation was from the craft, not the site. Template:Tq Yes, that's why that shouldn't be suggested. The part Template:Tq certainly shouldn't go into the text. Also relevant: Template:Tq 1. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think all these points are already answered in the links in the Wikipedia entry, if you care to look. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Steven Greenstreet and Nick Pope

From The Basement Office (TV Series 2019–). Episode list. IMDb. Youtube playlist is more complete:

• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwNrNqsuwF1n43wh5nuV5hTFrdAN00kfk

By Steven Greenstreet and Nick Pope (journalist).

• PART 1: Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident | Real evidence & witnesses | The Basement Office. June 26, 2019
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10558980/?ref_=ttep_ep5

The above video breaks down deputy base commander Lieutenant Colonel Charles I. Halt tape, UK Ministry of Defence documents, and interviews Charles Halt. Halt describes what he saw, and that it was not explained by any of the other prosaic explanations.

• PART 2: Rendlesham Forest UFO encounter | Binary Code & Jim Penniston | The Basement Office. July 10, 2019
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10648112/?ref_=ttep_ep6

Part 2 has info on Sergeant Jim Penniston. It interviews him. He says he touched the craft, and he described it. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Just keep in mind: YouTube videos are not RS. And the NY Post is considered unreliable as per our RS list. (Same with IMDB.com.)[1]Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all Youtube videos are considered unreliable. And the New York Post is not considered unreliable for all topics. I have long thought there was a circular logic on what is considered unreliable concerning UFOs, UAPs, etc.. A source is slapped with an unreliable source label for covering paranormal topics. Even though it is obvious that some of their articles cover the topic in a journalistic way: asking hard questions, interviewing sources, bringing in experts in the field. These videos are some of the best I have seen covering a UFO topic. And Nick Pope is an expert, and not prone to gullibility or unquestioning acceptance of what witnesses say. I wonder if these videos would qualify under the entertainment exception for allowing the New York Post to be used as a reference. I think WP:RSPSOURCES should have exceptions for authors. Both Steven Greenstreet and Nick Pope have been published elsewhere, including reliable sources. And it is obvious they have editorial control over these videos. But I am not going to waste time arguing over this. I am just putting out the best info on the topic I can find. Others can get WP:RSPSOURCES to improve with my suggestions. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a challenge finding RS on this topic [UFOs] because it is sort of fringy to begin with. But I think the "entertainment exception" for the NY Post is more about Hollywood/music type stuff.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

One would certainly not consider Nick Pope a reliable source.Skeptic2 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

One would certainly disagree with you on that. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation of Binary Code

Can linkedin be used if it's an expert on binary? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/binary-code-revisited-daniel-davis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPLINKEDIN Nobody (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)