This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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.
Illustration roughly matching Penniston's descriptions.Timeshifter, that's a good find. Somebody please add it. Here's additional sources onetwo
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg)
