Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Veteran Injured By UFO While On Duty; Full Medical Disability Now Granted

Bookmark and Share

Vet says government has acknowledged he was injured by UFO while on duty

By Alejandro Rojas

John Burroughs
A U.S. Air Force veteran believes a UFO incident he experienced while on duty in 1980 is the root of his current health problems. However, initially the government denied he was on active duty at the time. With the help of a lawyer and U.S. Senator John McCain’s office, his records have been corrected and he has received his full medical disability. He and his lawyer now claim their victory represents the “U.S. government’s de facto acknowledgement of the existence of UFOs.”

John Burroughs was serving as a U.S. Air Force police officer at Royal Air Force Base (RAF) Bentwaters, near the Rendelsham Forest in Suffolk, United Kingdom in December 1980 when the UFO incident took place. The base, along with its sister base, RAF Woodbridge, were on lease to the U.S.

The event became a large story in the UK, and is still debated to this day.

Burroughs, who along with an airman named James Penniston approached closest to the object, feels his health issues stem from his proximity to the UFO. He has since found a document that was created by UK Defence Intelligence that also speculates this could be the case. A section of the report that covers UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) – another term for UFO – radiation, speculates, ”The well-reported Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters event is an example where it might be postulated that several observers were probably exposed to UAP radiation for longer than normal UAP sighting periods.”

Burroughs has since suffered from congestive heart failure, which he says he has been told by scientists can be caused by radiation exposure. . . .

No comments :

Post a Comment

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW