Possible John Burroughs visit summer 08

[ghaynes]

Thanks Graham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Lau ... se_Missile

Cruise could be launched from a mobile, truck mounted launcher and given the crisis in Poland I though they might have been moved into position as soon as a threat became known, just in case. Also, to launch from somewhere like Greeham Common or Molesworth would have meant the missiles overflying heavily populated areas of the UK - very risky. Much more sensible to move them to bases on the coast, closest to the target area - i.e. Bentwaters/Woodbridge. Also, whilst it wasn't until mid 1980 that Francis Pym stated in the House that Cruise would be sited in the UK, it is very likely they were here long before that, simply because that is the nature of defence. Why let the enemy know what you are up to? Only when the enemy already knows is there any need to make a public announcement...

Given that Cruise could be fired from a mobile launcher and given the crisis in Poland might have been sufficient reason to move them up to a launch site, it seems feasible that the forest would provide excellent cover. They wouldn't need to move up as far as Capel Green, just in the forest would do. This was a tactic employed by the British Army on the Rhine when using tanks. The tanks would move to forward positions and hide up in German forests. The Polish crisis came to a peak in Dec 1980 but receeded soon afterwards so the launchers might only have been in position for a couple of days before being quietly withdrawn and the missiles returned to Molesworth. Much harder to hit mobile launchers than silo sites.

And Bentwaters already had the WSA...

All pure conjecture of course.

Thanks for that Puddlepirate. Does seem bizarre that the missiles would be moved so as not to overfly populated areas when the incoming Soviet ones would have caused total destruction anyway!
The Hot Row in the WSA at Bentwaters was no where near big enough to store Tomahawk GLCM...judging by the size of the ones they were building at Molesworth when I was there.

Graham

[redsocks]

After looking into the Rendlesham incident for some time now I agree with some of the posts that what we are dealing with here is indeed an elaborate hoax.There is no evidence to say anything usual happened at Rendlesham just some witnesses that it has to been said have not been very responsive(JB could you answer my last post please) all they are responsible for is a story which has changed somewhat throuout the years with a catalogue of errors compered to what they previously stated.I dont think it ends here as I intend to put something together for the local press explaining the whole story and why possibly the airmen would do this,dont want to put words into your mouth again AdrianF but a logical film or prehaps a book would seal this deal once and for all,there is enough information now to bury this.

Redsocks .. once a believer but with time following the same route as others who have looked hard into this and become a skeptic.........

Redsocks.

Jenny Randles didn't say she thought there was nothing to the incident, she said she believes there is an earthly explaination for it. According to the BBC 2003 documentary, what she does not believe in is the religion of UFOs. This religion is very real athough in its formative stages.

When you said you used to be a 'believer' - do you mean you believed it was an extra terrestrial event ?

Hi Silvertop,

I never thought the Rendlesham incident was an extra terrestrial happening but I did open myself up to the possiblitity of an accident or man made incident.However I have read all the books seen all the interviews and have come to the conclusion that it was a hoax for the following reasons.

1)The stories differ from airmen to airman,now and even back then when it happened.This only makes me think that these guys havent got a concrete story here and are clutching at straws.
2)I cant speak for the first night but I really do think Halt and he's men were following the lighthouse.I went there again at night and followed the light house from east gate,through the forest and the lighthouse was visible at all times as there is hardly any foalage this time of year.Where does it bring you out on a direct line from east gate to the lighthouse but the the landing site in the field in Capel Green.
3)Around this time UFO sightings were infinate with Americans hence the TV shows film etc,around this time 3 million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens!
4)No locals saw anything.we have a few stories of locals dogs dying etc but nobody saw what the airmen saw.Now this would be impossible in the dead of night on two accasions.
5)Serving airmen who I have spoke with say that the UFO story was just base folk law and just BS,in time the story seems to have strengthened but back then it was known base wide as a hoax.I guess the airman now dont want to look stupid and have gone along with the story all this time because they have started something so big.Also a bit of fame hurts nobody does it.
Just a snippet on my behalf why I consider the Rendlesham incident to be a hoax.
As we have kept guessing with tales of missles /crashes and everything else I can only think the airmen are laughing themselves to sleep at night.
I would like to say also I have had PM's from JB with questions like,"Have you seen what I have posted about the incident"......."I think I am nearly there with an answer"...........it felt like he was stringing me along,I am glad he has came on this forum though because in 28 years a key witness was here "making a mess of the situation" no wonder Penniston and Halt didnt want him on board they thought he may blow the cover and they have good reason to think this after what I have seen here.I think there really is enough evidence to prove this as a hoax now and its because this forum was setup and all credit to Admin for this......it took time but a key witness it seems has discredited Rendlesham as far as i'm concerned.
I dont intend to go to the press as I have got as far as I want to go with this and feel I have solved things for myself,but good luck to other forum members with there quest.

Redsocks

[Observer]

Your not the only one to think this a total hoax.
I think it was a hoax to a point but i am broad minded enough to keep other possibilities alive just in case. I never close the book untill i'm satisfied and i'm far from that.
I can understand keeping a hoax going for 28 years if there was a serious defence/political implication, but to keep it going for 28 years as an 'inocent' hoax is b------s. If it was a hoax without the defence/political implication, somebody would have said so by now as there would be no fear of reprisal or prosecution, egg on face may be but nothing more.

I can see a few people rubbing their hands with glee if it was the light house.

Obs

[Deep Purple]

I'm doubtful all of it was a hoax there has been too much deliberate disinformation.
A few basic questions underlines the whole hoax theory. If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. Surely any ranking officer worth his salt would have taken the scared men back out in the forest the next night and shown them what they were chasing, It would be there every night.
Also why did Halt write the memorandum? This in no way mentions the lighthouse or it might be a hoax, or airmen having a laugh. Bearing in mind Halt's rank would you do this?
Would you not word it scared airmen were thought to have been confused by a lighthouse in the vicinity or something similar?
Answer these questions if you think its a hoax.
Re Police Logs----If you think these are tamper proof think again especially back in the 80s. MI5 have just been on the phone you didnt see anything in rendlesham forest did you-- no sarge.
Also statements very rarely tie up from so many witnesses to a sudden and unusual event.
I'm all ears

[Observer]

I agree with your first sentence which is what i have been saying.
The rest, i'm not interested in.

Obs

[Deep Purple]

Why are you not interested "in the rest"
if you think these are irrellevant questions please explain, I stand to be corrected, but I think they go to the heart of the matter

[Observer]

I never said they were irrelevant, I have looked at all those questions you raised so many times that all i ended up doing was to going round in circles. I was getting no where thus i lost interest which in a way freed me up to pursue other lines of enquiry.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

Hi Graham

Incoming is one thing but there is no need to do the enemy's job for them! Hence to launch Cruise missiles from inland silos would be considered too risky. Our current nuclear missiles are fired from sea or airborne platforms, not from inland UK. That's why I suggested that given it was stated the missiles would be moved to launch sites, those sites would be on the coast. Given also that in 1980 the threat was from the east, then to move them to east coast launch sites would make sense. Add to that the statement that the launch sites would be within a 50 mile radius of the storage sites, then (according to the RAC routefinder) although Bentwaters / Woodbridge are 90 miles from Molesworth, they were still the closest east coast USAFE bases. And I don't suppose HMG/MoD worried too much about a minor detail such as a 50 miles radius. That was for public consumption only.

[Observer]

Don't buy that at all. Why because there would be several missiles if not a dozen ready to launch not just one. The launchers always had back up missiles incase of malfunction.
So i'm out walking my dog in the forest and i come across a cruise on its mobile launcher set in a clearing. Never mind the the forest fires that would happen after the exhaust hit the trees. Excuse me sir, this is forestry commision land, have you permission to be here, shouldn't you be the other side of the fence?

Obs

[Observer]

Just to carry on from my last post.
Just for example, if Puddle pirate is right, they would not have just one cruise at one location ready to fire at the eastern Block, there would be dozens and they would be located all the way down the East coast. Certainly not at just one location. So who knows about other diversionary antics along the Suffolk/Norfolk coast line. MMM.
Base commanders and other officer ranks at both bases would have been informed as part of an overall strategy. A criuse just out side your base is not kept secret. May be from the Brits, but if i was a forestry worker or a local out for a walk in the woods, i would dial 999 sit back and watch the showdown.
MMMM.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer

But they wouldn't be all the way down the east coast...there would be no need.

Francis Pym stated that Cruise missiles would be stored at only two locations. Greenham Common and Molesworth. The missiles would be transported to the launch sites in times of crisis and those sites would be within 50 miles of the storage sites. This limits the range of deployment. it also suggests that they would be launched from mobile launchers, not silos. The twin bases are 90 miles from Molesworth - which would have been the nearest storage site to the east coast and the twin bases were the nearest USAFE bases to Poland. In this situation Cruise would have been deployed for attack, not defence, thus the shortest distance to target and speed of deployment would have been the major considerations when selecting the launch site.

As with everything involving the government, political considerations are paramount because all MP's want to get re-elected. Flying Cruise over heavily populated areas of the UK would be way too risky. Incoming would not have been a consideration but the risk of an outbound missile going astray and landing in London, Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Norwich etc would have been unthinkable thus the launch sites would have to have been on the east coast (assuming the launch site was determined by the situation in Poland).

Don't get too uptight about this. It is only conjecture. It could be complete b***ks.

[Observer]

Puddlepirate

There was no offence intended, i was having a bit of fun to lighten the mood which is my warped sense of humour. I'm not up tight, just p---d off with the way this forum is going round in circles.
I understand what you are saying about cruise. I don't think they would deploy just one missile in the forest, there would be several, but i don't think cruise is our answer.

There now seems to be two camps, one it was all a load of nonsense and a total fabrication and the other still believes some thing unexplainable happened in the forest.

What every body is forgetting or failing to consider is that this incident could have been a totally inocent 'caper' that had no military connection.
And it does not have to be of US origin.

We all now have our favoured and unfavourable witnesses, some are in our good books and some we don't trust. Each of us will have our own agendas as to why we believe one witness over another.

I'm saying nothing.

Obs

[Deep Purple]

For those who say its a hoax I have no answers to my simply questions posted very recently
To remind you
A

few basic questions underlines the whole hoax theory. If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. Surely any ranking officer worth his salt would have taken the scared men back out in the forest the next night and shown them what they were chasing, It would be there every night.
Also why did Halt write the memorandum? This in no way mentions the lighthouse or it might be a hoax, or airmen having a laugh. Bearing in mind Halt's rank would you do this?
Would you not word it scared airmen were thought to have been confused by a lighthouse in the vicinity or something similar?
Answer these questions if you think its a hoax.

All I have had is one somewhat half hearted semi evasive response
They are simple questions---- No takers?[/quote]

[redsocks]

I'm doubtful all of it was a hoax there has been too much deliberate disinformation.
A few basic questions underlines the whole hoax theory. If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. Surely any ranking officer worth his salt would have taken the scared men back out in the forest the next night and shown them what they were chasing, It would be there every night.
Also why did Halt write the memorandum? This in no way mentions the lighthouse or it might be a hoax, or airmen having a laugh. Bearing in mind Halt's rank would you do this?
Would you not word it scared airmen were thought to have been confused by a lighthouse in the vicinity or something similar?
Answer these questions if you think its a hoax.
Re Police Logs----If you think these are tamper proof think again especially back in the 80s. MI5 have just been on the phone you didnt see anything in rendlesham forest did you-- no sarge.
Also statements very rarely tie up from so many witnesses to a sudden and unusual event.
I'm all ears

I dont want to go on about this deep Purple but I will answer your question.
The USAF military police have a direct line contact to the local bobbies,they mention UFO and some dozzy cops react,you are looking into things to much,just look at the obvious................

Redsocks

[redsocks]

For those who say its a hoax I have no answers to my simply questions posted very recently
To remind you
A

few basic questions underlines the whole hoax theory. If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. Surely any ranking officer worth his salt would have taken the scared men back out in the forest the next night and shown them what they were chasing, It would be there every night.
Also why did Halt write the memorandum? This in no way mentions the lighthouse or it might be a hoax, or airmen having a laugh. Bearing in mind Halt's rank would you do this?
Would you not word it scared airmen were thought to have been confused by a lighthouse in the vicinity or something similar?
Answer these questions if you think its a hoax.

All I have had is one somewhat half hearted semi evasive response
They are simple questions---- No takers?

[/quote]

Come on Deep Purple little green men would be great :D but it just aint going to happen here,but obviously you can believe what you want all I will say is you need to look really deep into this......and then you will see how daft it all is,look at the obvious and dont let your imagination take you away.

Redsocks

Redsocks

[Observer]

Deep purple

OK, here is a full hearted non evasive response,

There was no hoax other than the UFO story to cover up something else.
Shoot me down in flames if you like but i'm sticking to that until the hoax theory is proven.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

few basic questions underlines the whole hoax theory. If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. Surely any ranking officer worth his salt would have taken the scared men back out in the forest the next night and shown them what they were chasing, It would be there every night.
Also why did Halt write the memorandum? This in no way mentions the lighthouse or it might be a hoax, or airmen having a laugh. Bearing in mind Halt's rank would you do this?
Would you not word it scared airmen were thought to have been confused by a lighthouse in the vicinity or something similar?
Answer these questions if you think its a hoax.

I was pretty sure it was a hoax until I read the police reports. Now I don't think it was a hoax. I don't think anything happened in the forest. At least not as we have been led to believe. The main reasons for my change of opinion are (a) the police visited twice and saw absolutely nothing at all (b) the totally contradictory witness stetements (c) the fact that JB has yet to answer some very basic non intrusive questions (d) given the considerable number of servicemen, vehicles, camera equipment, floodlights etc in the forest, lights in the sky, beams shining down, a craft on the ground in the farmer's field, patrols walking all over the farmer's land, farm animals going crazy and so forth, it appears nobody else saw or reported anything. Even allowing for the fact it was Christmas, that is highly improbable. Therefore, nothing happened - not as we are being told. The fact that something else happened, something that merited a major cover story, that I don't doubt.

To anwser redsocks, deep purple and admin...

If Halt thought they were chasing a lighthouse , why on earth did he let the myth grow. That's all it was - a myth. A cover story. Once started, it could not stop.

Also why did Halt write the memorandum? He was ordered to come up with something once it became public - again, a cover story. His chain of command was USAFE not MoD. The US DoD would not have sought documents from MoD to answer a US FoI request unless they wanted to create and perpetuate a cover story. My personal view is that the memo is a diverson. Ditto the tape and probably also the witness statements.

re the police reports and the lines on the page..it looks like a dodgy fax machine or photocopier. the lines stop again futher down the page so were probably caused by a dirty scanner or heat rollers or something.

I realise admin has found JB's contribution to be helpful but personally, I don't think JB has added anything of any real value.

I believe the police reports, verified news reports, intel summaries regarding the situation in Poland, various defence reports and summaries from MoD, RAF, RN, Army MoD police and statements made in the House. Plus stuff from the National Archive down at Kew. These are facts, not flights of fancy and as such sre very useful pieces of the jigsaw.

[puddlepirate]

For Observer - just a bit of info re the launchers. They carry multiple weapons, four I think, in tubes contained in a trailer. Actually the legs of the trailer are like the legs of a standard artic trailer (semi to our American friends). The tractor unit can be driven away leaving the trailer behind. The launcher is elevated to about 80 degs for missile launch - and they are often parked up under trees. Probably covered with cam nets until required. Small team to drive, operate the targetting computer and launch etc.. opcon is probably contained in the tractor unit. Huge radiation risk if there is a misfire.

The legs of the trailer have feet to spread the load and, oddly, are about the size of the marks on the floor of the forest.

Not sure about the launch crew but probably USAF. Driver etc probably RAF or Army. Being close to the twin bases would provide security and air cover if required.

Here's a phot:

http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/abase/sang ... nham34.jpg

Halt et al would have no need to know and personnel at the bases were not involved with Cruise. What's the betting they were delivered to Greenham Common in a C-5. Anyway, enough. Probably complete b***ks so quickly moving on.....

[Observer]

Puddlepirate

Knowing the forest intimately and before the great storm [I used to shoot there at night with a friend remember] There is no way a vehicle like that would get down the small logging tracks and especially where the 3 indentations were found, and be able to manoeuvre and back up into that position.
The forestry lads used narrow logging carts towed behind a tractor, i know as i hitched a few rides so they could go down the narrow tracks which by the way are much wider now than they were. Even today with the wider tracks, that truck would struggle to get through.
Funny no tyre marks were found especially as it would have weighed many tons..

Obs

[AdrianF]

Also why did Halt write the memorandum? He was ordered to come up with something once it became public - again, a cover story. His chain of command was USAFE not MoD. The US DoD would not have sought documents from MoD to answer a US FoI request unless they wanted to create and perpetuate a cover story. My personal view is that the memo is a diverson. Ditto the tape and probably also the witness statements.

Puddlepirate,
I agree, I've always had a problem with this part of the story and your use of the word diversion is an interesting one. I'm not saying that I believe Halts memo and the statements were fake, but certainly the way they came into the public domain is still very suspect.

I realise admin has found JB's contribution to be helpful but personally, I don't think JB has added anything of any real value.

It might be that JBs claims about the C-5 back up the idea that the focus should be on what was going on inside the bases.

Adrian