[Part 1] Rendlesham explained? [Visitor Submitted Article]
Capsule/module
by Observer » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:37 am
Hi Do Rayegon
Not sure if yoy are referring to the Apollo command module or capsule or even the F-111 escape capsule. The Apollo command module according to an ex ARRS pilot (who is a friend) and was based at Woodbridge during that era was removed not long after the incident for repairs as it was no longer sea worthy due to 'damage'! He also said that they had an F-111 escape capsule at Woodbridge that was from a genuine ejection that happened from an F-111 crash. Check the crash date.
It was also said by NASA that East Anglia was not under the Apollo re entry flight path and subsequently didn't see the need for the USAF to continue Apollo recovery training at that location. Apollo recovery training ceased at Woodbridge not long after the incident.
The reason the 67th ARRS originally had a command training module at Woodbridge was because they brought it with them from their last posting which was under a re entry flight path. Not sure though where that was but i'm told some where in the far East.
Observer
Not sure if yoy are referring to the Apollo command module or capsule or even the F-111 escape capsule. The Apollo command module according to an ex ARRS pilot (who is a friend) and was based at Woodbridge during that era was removed not long after the incident for repairs as it was no longer sea worthy due to 'damage'! He also said that they had an F-111 escape capsule at Woodbridge that was from a genuine ejection that happened from an F-111 crash. Check the crash date.
It was also said by NASA that East Anglia was not under the Apollo re entry flight path and subsequently didn't see the need for the USAF to continue Apollo recovery training at that location. Apollo recovery training ceased at Woodbridge not long after the incident.
The reason the 67th ARRS originally had a command training module at Woodbridge was because they brought it with them from their last posting which was under a re entry flight path. Not sure though where that was but i'm told some where in the far East.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Apollo training module
by Observer » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:17 am
Hi DoRayEgon
You are probably right re the ARRS and Spain. My friend mentioned Spain as one of his last postings and talked about recovery exercises in the Med.
They brought the capsule with them when the squadron was posted to RAF Woodbridge in the 70's as the North sea (just 6 miles away) was seen as a good training ground even though this area of the UK was not on its flight path. The ARRS squadron that took over from them in Spain also had a training module as this area was under the flight path.
RAF Woodbridge was home to the ARRS and Bentwaters would not be involved, so deliveries etc would only occurr at Woodbridge.
They also did extensive training on F-111 escape capsule recovery from land and sea. Some pundits suggest that it was an F-111 escape capsule that was used in the hoax. Its shape though does not fit in with witness statements, the Apollo command module does!
Regards
Observer
You are probably right re the ARRS and Spain. My friend mentioned Spain as one of his last postings and talked about recovery exercises in the Med.
They brought the capsule with them when the squadron was posted to RAF Woodbridge in the 70's as the North sea (just 6 miles away) was seen as a good training ground even though this area of the UK was not on its flight path. The ARRS squadron that took over from them in Spain also had a training module as this area was under the flight path.
RAF Woodbridge was home to the ARRS and Bentwaters would not be involved, so deliveries etc would only occurr at Woodbridge.
They also did extensive training on F-111 escape capsule recovery from land and sea. Some pundits suggest that it was an F-111 escape capsule that was used in the hoax. Its shape though does not fit in with witness statements, the Apollo command module does!
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by DoRayEgon » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:56 pm
It is startlingly similar but you'd think Burroughs would know what one looked like seeing as he was posted on the same airfeild it was stored/used at?
unless something either external or internal had alterd his perception enough to render it unrecognisable, the brain can make everyday mundain objects seem strange in it's attempts to make sense or what the eyes are telling it they are looking at.
I know it's been said he felt strange sensations when approaching the object and these have lead certain researchers to imply a static electrical feild could have been present but to be perfectly honist the affects he describes are identical to an Adrenalin rush (if you've ever been in a car crash you will recognise the effects) i'm sure the adrenalin was flowing, it was at the height of the cold war and he was chasing strange lights around a dark cold forest (weither these lights were the same object he later saw i'm not sure).
Would he have had access to the storage area it was kept in or have any cause to have seen it it about the place?
unless something either external or internal had alterd his perception enough to render it unrecognisable, the brain can make everyday mundain objects seem strange in it's attempts to make sense or what the eyes are telling it they are looking at.
I know it's been said he felt strange sensations when approaching the object and these have lead certain researchers to imply a static electrical feild could have been present but to be perfectly honist the affects he describes are identical to an Adrenalin rush (if you've ever been in a car crash you will recognise the effects) i'm sure the adrenalin was flowing, it was at the height of the cold war and he was chasing strange lights around a dark cold forest (weither these lights were the same object he later saw i'm not sure).
Would he have had access to the storage area it was kept in or have any cause to have seen it it about the place?
- DoRayEgon
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:18 pm
Who saw the Apollo module
by Observer » Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:01 pm
Ht All
I'm led to believe that few people were allowed near or to see the Apollo training module and most including the security men would possibly not know of its existance. Infact 99% of the 6000 personel at both bases would have no idea of its presence.
The ARRS always had a 'ready' crew on duty even at Christmas.
As for the very heavy electro static atmosphere that a few of the men reported when near the object remains a mystery. It is this aspect alone that puts the hoax theory in to question. With the exception of this penomena, the hoax theory has some compelling evidence.
It would be nice if we could see some equally compelling evidence that suggests it was a UFO or some other man made device, either Russian or whatever?
We have been down the anti gravity road and possibly aerial vehicles powered by this system but i don't think that has been achieved now let alone then.
Observer
I'm led to believe that few people were allowed near or to see the Apollo training module and most including the security men would possibly not know of its existance. Infact 99% of the 6000 personel at both bases would have no idea of its presence.
The ARRS always had a 'ready' crew on duty even at Christmas.
As for the very heavy electro static atmosphere that a few of the men reported when near the object remains a mystery. It is this aspect alone that puts the hoax theory in to question. With the exception of this penomena, the hoax theory has some compelling evidence.
It would be nice if we could see some equally compelling evidence that suggests it was a UFO or some other man made device, either Russian or whatever?
We have been down the anti gravity road and possibly aerial vehicles powered by this system but i don't think that has been achieved now let alone then.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Static electricity and slow motion feeling
by Observer » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:42 am
There were some posts last year on this forum talking about static electricity and the effects on humans.
The adrenaline rush which was suggested by DoRayEgon giving the men these wierd symptoms is hard to understand, but i do concede that this phenomena can occurr under traumatic experiences such as having a car or bike crash. I'm sure some where in the medical profession there is data on this subject. One of our members is a nurse and he may be able to throw some light on it.
The only place you are likely to experience heavy static in the air is under power lines in damp weather. There are no power lines near Rendlesham forest.
As for berets being blown off some airmen's heads, could this have been caused by the down wash from a helicopter!
Larry Warren and Peter Robbins mention in their book, Left at East Gate helicopters flying over head. Its strange that no one else mentions this.
Observer
The adrenaline rush which was suggested by DoRayEgon giving the men these wierd symptoms is hard to understand, but i do concede that this phenomena can occurr under traumatic experiences such as having a car or bike crash. I'm sure some where in the medical profession there is data on this subject. One of our members is a nurse and he may be able to throw some light on it.
The only place you are likely to experience heavy static in the air is under power lines in damp weather. There are no power lines near Rendlesham forest.
As for berets being blown off some airmen's heads, could this have been caused by the down wash from a helicopter!
Larry Warren and Peter Robbins mention in their book, Left at East Gate helicopters flying over head. Its strange that no one else mentions this.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by DoRayEgon » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:01 pm
I've read of static electricity feilds becoming almost like a force feild, making it difficult to walk through and hiar raising effects, in a sticky tape factory 
can't remember the full story 
will have search for it see if any relative time distortions were felt (oooo sounds all "star trecky" dont it 
)
The effect was greatest under 2 large rollers carry the plastic, i spose the static was caused by the friction of the pastic ?
can't remember the full story will have search for it see if any relative time distortions were felt (oooo sounds all "star trecky" dont it )
The effect was greatest under 2 large rollers carry the plastic, i spose the static was caused by the friction of the pastic ?
- DoRayEgon
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:18 pm
by Pluton » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:43 am
On reading the above article the first thing to strike me was this.
If the ARRS were so highly trained to recover this very capsule, why did they spend two, possibly three, nights bumbling around the forest trying to recover it!!!?
Then I asked myself, if they were trying not to be seen by the British, they failed. There are many civilian reports of the UFO being sighted (there are some new ones being followed up soon by somebody I know who is going down to Rendlesham).
Next the thought that if this capsule was designed to re-enter from space how did a few pine tree branches and a relatively short drop from a helicopter damage it so much?
Then on looking at the pictures above, the next thing to strike me is it looks nothing like the drawings in Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansags statements for the first night, or indeed the descriptions for the second night, the most obvious one for the second night being the UFO was estimated by some airmen to be larger than the first night's sighting, in fact it was 30 feet across compared to about 9 feet for the first night.
There is a problem with not only the creation of static but also what on an Apollo capsule causes the 100 feet across (from Greg Battram's statement) yellow fog?
There are other worries with this idea. Radiation readings, all the plasma like balls floating around, red lights streaking into the area from the North Sea, laser beams almost hitting Halt and his patrol, the strange symbols seen on the craft by Penniston which were not any recognised NASA/USAF symbols, the fact many airmen said the craft had pointed appendages, and I dare say others if I think about it long enough.
I think this theoryfalls far short of explaining even a small fraction of the observed details in the many military and civilian reports and statements.
If the ARRS were so highly trained to recover this very capsule, why did they spend two, possibly three, nights bumbling around the forest trying to recover it!!!?
Then I asked myself, if they were trying not to be seen by the British, they failed. There are many civilian reports of the UFO being sighted (there are some new ones being followed up soon by somebody I know who is going down to Rendlesham).
Next the thought that if this capsule was designed to re-enter from space how did a few pine tree branches and a relatively short drop from a helicopter damage it so much?
Then on looking at the pictures above, the next thing to strike me is it looks nothing like the drawings in Penniston, Burroughs and Cabansags statements for the first night, or indeed the descriptions for the second night, the most obvious one for the second night being the UFO was estimated by some airmen to be larger than the first night's sighting, in fact it was 30 feet across compared to about 9 feet for the first night.
There is a problem with not only the creation of static but also what on an Apollo capsule causes the 100 feet across (from Greg Battram's statement) yellow fog?
There are other worries with this idea. Radiation readings, all the plasma like balls floating around, red lights streaking into the area from the North Sea, laser beams almost hitting Halt and his patrol, the strange symbols seen on the craft by Penniston which were not any recognised NASA/USAF symbols, the fact many airmen said the craft had pointed appendages, and I dare say others if I think about it long enough.
I think this theoryfalls far short of explaining even a small fraction of the observed details in the many military and civilian reports and statements.
- Pluton
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:47 am
- Location: Here and Now
Renewed interest
by Observer » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:48 am
Hi
First of all its nice to see some debate returning on forum.
Yes, there were different and conflicting statements concerning the size and shape of the object in the forest. One statement by Pennistion fits the Apollo capsule to a 'T', yet as you say, other statements refer to it as much larger and a different shape.
Larry Warren states in his book that there were helicopters flying over head, He does not make it clear if it was one or several.
It would be interesting to find any civilian witness that can corroborate his statement. If there was a helicoter flying over the incident area, locals must have noticed or at least heard it? This to me is a crucial bit of evidence and needs investigating.
Why would an old friend of mine, Now retired from the ARRS say it was a giant leg pull.
However, the mechanics of these events need explaining, which is what we are all trying to do.
One path that needs further investigation (if it was not a hoax) is to see just what the Russians may have been up to during that time.
High technology is not the sole prerogative of the USA.
If it was not a hoax, just why was there so much secrecy?
Observer
First of all its nice to see some debate returning on forum.
Yes, there were different and conflicting statements concerning the size and shape of the object in the forest. One statement by Pennistion fits the Apollo capsule to a 'T', yet as you say, other statements refer to it as much larger and a different shape.
Larry Warren states in his book that there were helicopters flying over head, He does not make it clear if it was one or several.
It would be interesting to find any civilian witness that can corroborate his statement. If there was a helicoter flying over the incident area, locals must have noticed or at least heard it? This to me is a crucial bit of evidence and needs investigating.
Why would an old friend of mine, Now retired from the ARRS say it was a giant leg pull.
However, the mechanics of these events need explaining, which is what we are all trying to do.
One path that needs further investigation (if it was not a hoax) is to see just what the Russians may have been up to during that time.
High technology is not the sole prerogative of the USA.
If it was not a hoax, just why was there so much secrecy?
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by DoRayEgon » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:46 pm
IMHO the "secrecy" was more Goverment red tape/lack of comunication and apathy as apposed to to a cover-up, as far as the brits where concerned they had a date to check Radar returns not knowing they had the wronge date which yealed nothing and the US where not exactly falling over themselves to cover it up, they gave out the details a couple of years later under the FOIA, a real cover-up would still either be in effect and we wouldn't be here talking about it or it would have been years before it was released.
I meen how long was it before James Easton uncoverd the origional reports, that had been sitting about in the US with a ufologist for years
IF, the radar tapes had held something then maybe there would have been a followup but there wasn't so there wasn't (if you follow me)
I meen how long was it before James Easton uncoverd the origional reports, that had been sitting about in the US with a ufologist for years
IF, the radar tapes had held something then maybe there would have been a followup but there wasn't so there wasn't (if you follow me)
- DoRayEgon
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:18 pm
Admins reply
by Observer » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:19 pm
Hi Admin
Your recent text concerning the Rendlesham incident explained article is very well laid out and it high lights a few areas that can be described as doubtful.
The article was written as an exercise in how pieces of evidence can be linked together which culminated in the theory that was presented.
This does not mean that the article is representing what actually happened, but so far, some of the evidence contained in the article is quite compelling. Other snippets are open to debate.
I have many contacts who were either in the USAF, RAF or were/are local British aviation experts. The combined evidence from these contacts led to me to compile this article and submit it to the forum.
To my my mind it is no better a theory than the ones presented by Geogina Bruni or Larry Warren.
The bottom line is that none so far including mine are provable!
I sincerely believe that there are one or two people out there that do know what the truth is, but for some obscure reason they seem unwilling to come forward and tell us.
Now the american way to get this info is to offer a cash incentive, but we do run the risk of free loaders after a fast buck with a fake story.
I am continually hearing the same thing from several sources, "You wouldn't believe it if we told you". Well how about trying us out and let us be the judge?
The very words, you wouldn't believe it must tell us some thing. Is it because it is so unbelievable or is it because it is so simple that our simple human minds are programmed to not to believe it?
Perhaps a little lateral thinking by our members could yield new paths of enquiry.
Observer
Your recent text concerning the Rendlesham incident explained article is very well laid out and it high lights a few areas that can be described as doubtful.
The article was written as an exercise in how pieces of evidence can be linked together which culminated in the theory that was presented.
This does not mean that the article is representing what actually happened, but so far, some of the evidence contained in the article is quite compelling. Other snippets are open to debate.
I have many contacts who were either in the USAF, RAF or were/are local British aviation experts. The combined evidence from these contacts led to me to compile this article and submit it to the forum.
To my my mind it is no better a theory than the ones presented by Geogina Bruni or Larry Warren.
The bottom line is that none so far including mine are provable!
I sincerely believe that there are one or two people out there that do know what the truth is, but for some obscure reason they seem unwilling to come forward and tell us.
Now the american way to get this info is to offer a cash incentive, but we do run the risk of free loaders after a fast buck with a fake story.
I am continually hearing the same thing from several sources, "You wouldn't believe it if we told you". Well how about trying us out and let us be the judge?
The very words, you wouldn't believe it must tell us some thing. Is it because it is so unbelievable or is it because it is so simple that our simple human minds are programmed to not to believe it?
Perhaps a little lateral thinking by our members could yield new paths of enquiry.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Landing lights
by Observer » Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:52 am
Hi Admin
You are quite right, the damaged landing lights perported by Randle and Butler in "Skycrash" has little hard evidence to support the claim. I would like to hear more from both these people as to why they arrived at this statement and what evidence they had to back the claim.
The damaged landing lights does however fit in to my scenario of the ARRS flying too low over the forest with the Apollo capsule slung under neath. The capsule collided with one of the landing lights causing the capsule to start 'swinging'. This in turn made the HH53 unstable thus they jettisoned the capsule into the forest for safety reasons.
As you know this is just one of several theories i have put forward and as yet i have no way of proving that this is what happened.
Observer
You are quite right, the damaged landing lights perported by Randle and Butler in "Skycrash" has little hard evidence to support the claim. I would like to hear more from both these people as to why they arrived at this statement and what evidence they had to back the claim.
The damaged landing lights does however fit in to my scenario of the ARRS flying too low over the forest with the Apollo capsule slung under neath. The capsule collided with one of the landing lights causing the capsule to start 'swinging'. This in turn made the HH53 unstable thus they jettisoned the capsule into the forest for safety reasons.
As you know this is just one of several theories i have put forward and as yet i have no way of proving that this is what happened.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Is it a bird; is it a plane; is it a hovering CH53?
by Biffer » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:55 am
This is my first post, so perhaps a little background/bio' is in order ...
I've been seriously interested in the UFO phenomena for over 40-years now and have had one personal close encounter with what might have been a genuine UFO (whatever a 'genuine' one is). Until fairly recently I was a freelance defence journalist, specialising in military aviation (and no, I'm not Nick Cook - though I did have a short conversation with Nick in the refectory que at Farnborough one year - another story).
The Rendlesham case has a particular fascination for me. I visited Bentwaters/Woodbridge on several occasions when they were active US bases, and spoke to many servicemen there, of all ranks, about the case.
I've stood at the East Gate guard post at approximately the same time and under the same weather conditions as the reported events; I've stumbled through Rendlesham Forest in the dark, armed only with a flashlight (not an experience for the faint-hearted); and I've spoken face-to-face with Larry Warren about his experience.
Some might infer from this that I have special knowledge of the incident. Sadly, this is not the case. Any 'special knowledge' I have is all to do with military aircraft and military people, so everything I am about to say is based entirely on that.
First of all, I know nothing of the individuals reportedly involved in this scenario, or their characters. However, if they are helicopter pilots with the 67th ARRS, I think I can hazard a few bold assumptions: they are liable to be highly experienced and responsible career officers with pensions, promotions and reputations to worry about. If you accept this for the moment, then you must accept also that it's highly unlikely they would be foolish enough to risk a court-martial and the loss of said rank, status, pension, etc, by pulling such a crazy stunt as outlined by the original poster.
Not only do I find this scenario unlikely, I doubt it's even technically possible. The CH53 is a highly sophisticated (and expensive) piece of military hardware. Like all such kit, you simply can't jump into it and take-off for a jaunt around the countryside whenever the whim takes you.
Anyone who knows anything about the military will know that it runs on procedures and paperwork. Nothing happens unless it's authorised and signed for (often in triplicate). All flights, therefore - even training flights or operational rescue flights - have to be authorised and logged; permissions have to be approved and forms have to be filled in.
Simply starting the engines alone entails using up a small fortune in fuel and involves a lot more personnel than just the flight crew. Every minute those engines and rotor-blades are turning is ageing that aircraft and reducing its available operational time before overhaul - so you better have a damn good reason for starting it up in the first place.
If any CH53 flight took place that night (or any subsequent night) there must be paperwork to prove it - for example, a Tasking Order or Authorisation; the 'Airworthiness' chit signed by the pilot; the pilots' and/or unit log books. Call me 'picky', but before accepting this story, I'd like to see even one piece of the paper trail.
Was the 67th ARRS even on duty that night? As a dedicated rescue unit you might assume it would have at least one helicopter on stand-by 24/7. But the 67th is a US Air Force unit, tasked primarily with the rescue of downed American airmen. True, the unit assists in the rescue of RAF and civilian personnel, whenever possible, but was it on stand-by on Christmas night when probably no US military flying was taking place over the UK? Again, there would be paperwork to prove or refute this.
Everything I've read about the Woodbridge base that Christmas night suggests it was as I'd suspect at that time of year - shut down for all practical purposes with just a skeleton staff on duty.
But supposing we accept for now that the flight took place: there's still problems. We all know how long its been since the Rendlesham Incident took place, but has anyone heard of this alleged hoax before? In all the years, despite all the hype and media publicity about the case, no single military witness (to my knowledge) has ever spoken of this stunt before or even hinted that they might have been involved in it. Also, TMK, no one has spoken of a CH53 flight on the night of 25/26 December.
I'm not just talking about the flight crew. The number of personnel required to launch even a single helicopter might surprise you.
What about the operators in the control tower (despite what's been said in other posts, the tower is manned at any time operations take place, or are liable to take place)? What about the fire personnel (again, whenever aircraft are flying, or might fly, fire cover must be provided and the fire section notified)? What about the ground engineers who would assist with engine start-up and check the aircraft over and refuel it upon landing? What about the storage/supply personnel who would have to unlock the store where the 'capsule' was kept and make it ready (everything in the military is under lock and key)?
Then there's the Security Police personnel. In order to hit the lights at the east end of Woodbridge runway, the helicopter must have been flying very low, well within audible and visual range of a number of static and mobile security personnel. Why did none of them report seeing the aircraft/accident, at the time or since?
The initial alert about something odd hovering over the forest came from the East Gate guard shack. If a 'Jolly Green' had flown over, hit the runway lights with a dangling Apollo capsule, dumped said capsule in Rendlesham Forest then hovered about trying to find its lost cargo - believe me - the SPs at East Gate would have both heard and seen it.
There are shades of Roswell here and poor Major Marcell's alleged inability to identify a 'weather balloon'. All helicopters are noisy, the CH53 particularly so, and security personell would have been well able to identify a hovering 'Jolly Green' at such a close range, even after dark. They saw those helicopters in the air, day and night, on a regular basis.
Another small point - the original post stated that the 'capsule' was recovered on the following night (ie; the 26/27th) while Colonel Halt and his men cordoned off the area . But isn't it the case that Halt didn't take his men into the forest until the night of the 27/28th, effectively the third night of the event(s)?
As another poster commented, if Halt was 'in the loop' about the hoax, and the US Air Force wanted to keep it 'in house' to avoid embarrassment, then why did Halt draw it to the attention of British authorities by consulting the RAF Liason Officer and sending his famous memo' to the MoD? It just doesn't make sense.
Where does this leave the original poster's friend, who claims to have been serving with the 67th at the time? Is he a liar? Not necessarily. Is he an agent of disinformation? Who knows? Probably not.
I suspect that what we're dealing with here is the military mindset. All military people habitually talk up their role in any task or operation, especially if talking to civilians (how many ex-army cooks have you been sat next to on a train who turn out to have been in the SAS?).
Yes, I agree that practical jokes go on all the time (you have to do something to relieve the boredom). The majority of these pranks manage to stay the right side of disciplinary action, while a few (sometimes well publicised) end up in a court martial and dishonourable discharge.
My point is that the 'jokers' usually know where to draw the line, but that the stunt alleged in this case would go way beyond acceptable military behaviour (even for ex-Vietnam veterans). It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
And did they think they wouldn't be found out? Let's see ... a dummy Apollo capsule turns up, say, in the Wing Commander's parking slot on Bentwaters. Hmmm??? Now who do you suppose would own one of those? Could it be those Jolly Green Japers on Woodbridge, whose job it would be to retrieve such an item for real if necessary? And how did it get here? Beats the heck out of me ... why you'd need a helicopter, or something ... (all such speculation presupposing everyone within a wide radius was stone deaf and didn't notice the big whirly thing that left the capsule there in the first place).
What I'm more than happy to accept at face value is that a hoax such as this was discussed, at length, and probably in some detail, by some members of the unit over several Christmas beers - and that's as far as it went.
This can only be my personal opinion, of course, but my suspicion is that the original poster's friend got into a discussion with him/her about the Rendlesham case, and with typical military 'pazazz', talked up a storm about his part in the 'great UFO hoax'. As they say, one thing led to another. This doesn't make that person a liar, a cheat or a debunker - just an all too fallible human being, IMHO.
OK, this 'simple' reply has snowballed into something like a small novel, so I'll stop here (even though I could say more).
I'm happy to be proved entirely wrong, and a step in that direction would be if the original poster and/or his/her friend would come forward and give names, ranks, times, details, etc.
Also, can someone with more time and money than me put in an FOI request for the 67th ARRS flight logs covering the night(s) in question? Ah, but then, since part of that unit's job involved clandestine work with Special Forces, the request would probably be denied on grounds of national security. Such is (UFO) life.
To sum up: alien craft from another galaxy? Who knows? Hovering CH53? I very much doubt it.
Cheers!
Biffer.
I've been seriously interested in the UFO phenomena for over 40-years now and have had one personal close encounter with what might have been a genuine UFO (whatever a 'genuine' one is). Until fairly recently I was a freelance defence journalist, specialising in military aviation (and no, I'm not Nick Cook - though I did have a short conversation with Nick in the refectory que at Farnborough one year - another story).
The Rendlesham case has a particular fascination for me. I visited Bentwaters/Woodbridge on several occasions when they were active US bases, and spoke to many servicemen there, of all ranks, about the case.
I've stood at the East Gate guard post at approximately the same time and under the same weather conditions as the reported events; I've stumbled through Rendlesham Forest in the dark, armed only with a flashlight (not an experience for the faint-hearted); and I've spoken face-to-face with Larry Warren about his experience.
Some might infer from this that I have special knowledge of the incident. Sadly, this is not the case. Any 'special knowledge' I have is all to do with military aircraft and military people, so everything I am about to say is based entirely on that.
First of all, I know nothing of the individuals reportedly involved in this scenario, or their characters. However, if they are helicopter pilots with the 67th ARRS, I think I can hazard a few bold assumptions: they are liable to be highly experienced and responsible career officers with pensions, promotions and reputations to worry about. If you accept this for the moment, then you must accept also that it's highly unlikely they would be foolish enough to risk a court-martial and the loss of said rank, status, pension, etc, by pulling such a crazy stunt as outlined by the original poster.
Not only do I find this scenario unlikely, I doubt it's even technically possible. The CH53 is a highly sophisticated (and expensive) piece of military hardware. Like all such kit, you simply can't jump into it and take-off for a jaunt around the countryside whenever the whim takes you.
Anyone who knows anything about the military will know that it runs on procedures and paperwork. Nothing happens unless it's authorised and signed for (often in triplicate). All flights, therefore - even training flights or operational rescue flights - have to be authorised and logged; permissions have to be approved and forms have to be filled in.
Simply starting the engines alone entails using up a small fortune in fuel and involves a lot more personnel than just the flight crew. Every minute those engines and rotor-blades are turning is ageing that aircraft and reducing its available operational time before overhaul - so you better have a damn good reason for starting it up in the first place.
If any CH53 flight took place that night (or any subsequent night) there must be paperwork to prove it - for example, a Tasking Order or Authorisation; the 'Airworthiness' chit signed by the pilot; the pilots' and/or unit log books. Call me 'picky', but before accepting this story, I'd like to see even one piece of the paper trail.
Was the 67th ARRS even on duty that night? As a dedicated rescue unit you might assume it would have at least one helicopter on stand-by 24/7. But the 67th is a US Air Force unit, tasked primarily with the rescue of downed American airmen. True, the unit assists in the rescue of RAF and civilian personnel, whenever possible, but was it on stand-by on Christmas night when probably no US military flying was taking place over the UK? Again, there would be paperwork to prove or refute this.
Everything I've read about the Woodbridge base that Christmas night suggests it was as I'd suspect at that time of year - shut down for all practical purposes with just a skeleton staff on duty.
But supposing we accept for now that the flight took place: there's still problems. We all know how long its been since the Rendlesham Incident took place, but has anyone heard of this alleged hoax before? In all the years, despite all the hype and media publicity about the case, no single military witness (to my knowledge) has ever spoken of this stunt before or even hinted that they might have been involved in it. Also, TMK, no one has spoken of a CH53 flight on the night of 25/26 December.
I'm not just talking about the flight crew. The number of personnel required to launch even a single helicopter might surprise you.
What about the operators in the control tower (despite what's been said in other posts, the tower is manned at any time operations take place, or are liable to take place)? What about the fire personnel (again, whenever aircraft are flying, or might fly, fire cover must be provided and the fire section notified)? What about the ground engineers who would assist with engine start-up and check the aircraft over and refuel it upon landing? What about the storage/supply personnel who would have to unlock the store where the 'capsule' was kept and make it ready (everything in the military is under lock and key)?
Then there's the Security Police personnel. In order to hit the lights at the east end of Woodbridge runway, the helicopter must have been flying very low, well within audible and visual range of a number of static and mobile security personnel. Why did none of them report seeing the aircraft/accident, at the time or since?
The initial alert about something odd hovering over the forest came from the East Gate guard shack. If a 'Jolly Green' had flown over, hit the runway lights with a dangling Apollo capsule, dumped said capsule in Rendlesham Forest then hovered about trying to find its lost cargo - believe me - the SPs at East Gate would have both heard and seen it.
There are shades of Roswell here and poor Major Marcell's alleged inability to identify a 'weather balloon'. All helicopters are noisy, the CH53 particularly so, and security personell would have been well able to identify a hovering 'Jolly Green' at such a close range, even after dark. They saw those helicopters in the air, day and night, on a regular basis.
Another small point - the original post stated that the 'capsule' was recovered on the following night (ie; the 26/27th) while Colonel Halt and his men cordoned off the area . But isn't it the case that Halt didn't take his men into the forest until the night of the 27/28th, effectively the third night of the event(s)?
As another poster commented, if Halt was 'in the loop' about the hoax, and the US Air Force wanted to keep it 'in house' to avoid embarrassment, then why did Halt draw it to the attention of British authorities by consulting the RAF Liason Officer and sending his famous memo' to the MoD? It just doesn't make sense.
Where does this leave the original poster's friend, who claims to have been serving with the 67th at the time? Is he a liar? Not necessarily. Is he an agent of disinformation? Who knows? Probably not.
I suspect that what we're dealing with here is the military mindset. All military people habitually talk up their role in any task or operation, especially if talking to civilians (how many ex-army cooks have you been sat next to on a train who turn out to have been in the SAS?).
Yes, I agree that practical jokes go on all the time (you have to do something to relieve the boredom). The majority of these pranks manage to stay the right side of disciplinary action, while a few (sometimes well publicised) end up in a court martial and dishonourable discharge.
My point is that the 'jokers' usually know where to draw the line, but that the stunt alleged in this case would go way beyond acceptable military behaviour (even for ex-Vietnam veterans). It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
And did they think they wouldn't be found out? Let's see ... a dummy Apollo capsule turns up, say, in the Wing Commander's parking slot on Bentwaters. Hmmm??? Now who do you suppose would own one of those? Could it be those Jolly Green Japers on Woodbridge, whose job it would be to retrieve such an item for real if necessary? And how did it get here? Beats the heck out of me ... why you'd need a helicopter, or something ... (all such speculation presupposing everyone within a wide radius was stone deaf and didn't notice the big whirly thing that left the capsule there in the first place).
What I'm more than happy to accept at face value is that a hoax such as this was discussed, at length, and probably in some detail, by some members of the unit over several Christmas beers - and that's as far as it went.
This can only be my personal opinion, of course, but my suspicion is that the original poster's friend got into a discussion with him/her about the Rendlesham case, and with typical military 'pazazz', talked up a storm about his part in the 'great UFO hoax'. As they say, one thing led to another. This doesn't make that person a liar, a cheat or a debunker - just an all too fallible human being, IMHO.
OK, this 'simple' reply has snowballed into something like a small novel, so I'll stop here (even though I could say more).
I'm happy to be proved entirely wrong, and a step in that direction would be if the original poster and/or his/her friend would come forward and give names, ranks, times, details, etc.
Also, can someone with more time and money than me put in an FOI request for the 67th ARRS flight logs covering the night(s) in question? Ah, but then, since part of that unit's job involved clandestine work with Special Forces, the request would probably be denied on grounds of national security. Such is (UFO) life.
To sum up: alien craft from another galaxy? Who knows? Hovering CH53? I very much doubt it.
Cheers!
Biffer.
WARNING: May contain traces of wit and irony.
- Biffer
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:59 am
Whatever it was?
by Observer » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:56 am
Hi Biffer
Nice to see an avation enthusiast [like myself] posting on this forum. It was very well written and you made some very logical remarks as to how this phenomena could not have been a ARRS caper.
I had contacts at both bases [i used to live locally] when they were active, one was a crew chief on the HH53's and another was a pilot now retired but i still keep in touch.
Both remarked to me that it was a hoax pulled off by the ARRS but would not elaborate further.
The intriguing thing that they both said [independantly] was that if they told me what exactly happened, i wouldn't believe it any way. They also went on to say that if they told the media, they wouldn't believe it either.
So they just keep quiet for fear of ridicule.
Of course, none of this is provable due to lack of tangable evidence.
Dear old Nick Cooke, i have talked to him as well and seen a couple of his TV documentaries. Nick does not make much comment about UFO's as he always seems to have a remit in whatever he says that all these strange sightings must be a 'Black or Stealth' project, and thats about it.
What black or stealth project could hover over Rendlesham forest, land, take off again, shine lights down to the ground, break up into 5 pieces, have a blaze of multi coloured lights, cause a heavy static in the surrounding area and do all this silently with no engine noise. In 1980,
Nothing i know of.
I have some interesting information you may like to read but its too contentious for the forum. I could send it to your private E Mail address but do it through our admin who can give you my address.
Regards
Observer
Nice to see an avation enthusiast [like myself] posting on this forum. It was very well written and you made some very logical remarks as to how this phenomena could not have been a ARRS caper.
I had contacts at both bases [i used to live locally] when they were active, one was a crew chief on the HH53's and another was a pilot now retired but i still keep in touch.
Both remarked to me that it was a hoax pulled off by the ARRS but would not elaborate further.
The intriguing thing that they both said [independantly] was that if they told me what exactly happened, i wouldn't believe it any way. They also went on to say that if they told the media, they wouldn't believe it either.
So they just keep quiet for fear of ridicule.
Of course, none of this is provable due to lack of tangable evidence.
Dear old Nick Cooke, i have talked to him as well and seen a couple of his TV documentaries. Nick does not make much comment about UFO's as he always seems to have a remit in whatever he says that all these strange sightings must be a 'Black or Stealth' project, and thats about it.
What black or stealth project could hover over Rendlesham forest, land, take off again, shine lights down to the ground, break up into 5 pieces, have a blaze of multi coloured lights, cause a heavy static in the surrounding area and do all this silently with no engine noise. In 1980,
Nothing i know of.
I have some interesting information you may like to read but its too contentious for the forum. I could send it to your private E Mail address but do it through our admin who can give you my address.
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Biffer » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:43 pm
Hi Observer (seen anything interesting lately? ... sorry, couldn't resist it)
Thanks for the reply: I'll try to respond to your points:-
Sounds familiar ....
My answer to that is always the same - try me!
Translation = "they wouldn't swallow it."
Welcome to the world of real journalism, as opposed to the tabloid kind.
Nick is a very nice guy, but he knows nothing about UFOs However, he does knows a thing or three about Stealth technology. He makes a living writing about such things, so I presume his pronouncements on the former is just another way of making money from his knowledge of the latter ... er ... does that make sense?
By the way, have you heard the rumour that's going round that Nick and his namesake, Mr Pope, were separated at birth? I wonder who could have started that? Oh, wait a minute ... it was me, wasn't it???
... or in 2007, probably (?)
Me neither ... apart from that top secret stealth kite that Nick Pope got for Christmas!
What? More contentious than the idea of alien beings from another galaxy (or drunken pilots appropriating military equipment for the sake of a belly laugh)?
With respect, Observer ... you sound like an intelligent, regular sort of guy to me. But I don't know you from a hole in the forest. For all I know you may turn out to be absolutely barking mad and will bombard my email address with obscure tracts from the Bible or send me pornographic images of the triple-breasted maidens of planet Fnaaarg.
But seriously - a forum like this thrives on contention (back me up here, Admin'). Presumably we're all here seeking the truth of what happened in those woods (OK, some of us may have other agendas, but those types I just ignore anyway). If you have any relevant information - especially if you can back it up with names, dates, etc - then for Pete's sake post it on here openly for everyone to see. What have you got to lose (or hide)?
I may be doing you an injustice here (in which case I apologize and promise to buy you a pint next time we meet). It's just that I'm too old to be playing these cloak & dagger type games - "I've got secret information, but I'll only tell you if you promise not to tell anyone else." Going OTT, maybe, but if I had a pound for everyone who's approached me claiming to have exclusive/inside/secret/explosive/etc information ... well ... I'd have enough for a bloody good night out, at any rate.
So, come on, Observer - publish and be damned (as some famous geezer once said). You know it makes sense ... and you'll earn the undying respect and gratitude of a grateful nation (and maybe a drink or two).
All the best!
Biffer
PS
By the way ... if you really do have pornographic photos of the triple-breasted maidens of planet Fnaaarg ... my email address is ----
Thanks for the reply: I'll try to respond to your points:-
Both remarked to me that it was a hoax pulled off by the ARRS but would not elaborate further.
Sounds familiar ....
The intriguing thing that they both said [independantly] was that if they told me what exactly happened, i wouldn't believe it any way.
My answer to that is always the same - try me!
They also went on to say that if they told the media, they wouldn't believe it either.
Translation = "they wouldn't swallow it."
Of course, none of this is provable due to lack of tangable evidence.
Welcome to the world of real journalism, as opposed to the tabloid kind.
Dear old Nick Cooke, i have talked to him as well and seen a couple of his TV documentaries. Nick does not make much comment about UFO's as he always seems to have a remit in whatever he says that all these strange sightings must be a 'Black or Stealth' project, and thats about it.
Nick is a very nice guy, but he knows nothing about UFOs
However, he does knows a thing or three about Stealth technology. He makes a living writing about such things, so I presume his pronouncements on the former is just another way of making money from his knowledge of the latter ... er ... does that make sense? By the way, have you heard the rumour that's going round that Nick and his namesake, Mr Pope, were separated at birth? I wonder who could have started that? Oh, wait a minute ... it was me, wasn't it???
What black or stealth project could hover over Rendlesham forest, land, take off again, shine lights down to the ground, break up into 5 pieces, have a blaze of multi coloured lights, cause a heavy static in the surrounding area and do all this silently with no engine noise. In 1980,
... or in 2007, probably (?)
Nothing i know of.
Me neither ... apart from that top secret stealth kite that Nick Pope got for Christmas!
I have some interesting information you may like to read but its too contentious for the forum.
What? More contentious than the idea of alien beings from another galaxy (or drunken pilots appropriating military equipment for the sake of a belly laugh)?
I could send it to your private E Mail address but do it through our admin who can give you my address.
With respect, Observer ... you sound like an intelligent, regular sort of guy to me. But I don't know you from a hole in the forest. For all I know you may turn out to be absolutely barking mad and will bombard my email address with obscure tracts from the Bible or send me pornographic images of the triple-breasted maidens of planet Fnaaarg.
But seriously - a forum like this thrives on contention (back me up here, Admin'). Presumably we're all here seeking the truth of what happened in those woods (OK, some of us may have other agendas, but those types I just ignore anyway). If you have any relevant information - especially if you can back it up with names, dates, etc - then for Pete's sake post it on here openly for everyone to see. What have you got to lose (or hide)?
I may be doing you an injustice here (in which case I apologize and promise to buy you a pint next time we meet). It's just that I'm too old to be playing these cloak & dagger type games - "I've got secret information, but I'll only tell you if you promise not to tell anyone else." Going OTT, maybe, but if I had a pound for everyone who's approached me claiming to have exclusive/inside/secret/explosive/etc information ... well ... I'd have enough for a bloody good night out, at any rate.
So, come on, Observer - publish and be damned (as some famous geezer once said). You know it makes sense ... and you'll earn the undying respect and gratitude of a grateful nation (and maybe a drink or two).
All the best!
Biffer
PS
By the way ... if you really do have pornographic photos of the triple-breasted maidens of planet Fnaaarg ... my email address is ----
WARNING: May contain traces of wit and irony.
- Biffer
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:59 am
OH DEAR, WHAT CAN IT BE
by Observer » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:47 am
Hi Biffer
Thanks for you humerous reply, a man after my own heart. Have you read my article "A Summary and Perspective" Its a tongue in cheek look at the whole issue.
The article i have that has yet to be published contains some damming accusations against the USAF and a few individuals involved in the incident. Admin and myself are sitting on this for a while as it could instigate some litigation which we do not want.
My post name is Observer as i used to be in the Royal Observer Corps, hence my interest in military aviation.
This forum was started for those interested in the Rendlesham Forest UFO or i prefer incident. It welcomes all theories no matter how silly or ludicrous they may seem. Some are quite compelling and may have some mileage in them, where as others are not so convincing.
There have been some great discussions and we have a sensible and very helpful admin who keeps an eye on us all, not to mention his own input from time to time.
I have submitted many theories over time, some have been in my view compelling where as others not so. At the end of the day, no theory or senario that has been posted on this forum is or has been provable yet.
I hope you continue to make a contribution to this forum and i look forward to reading any posts you submit.
Regards
Observer
Thanks for you humerous reply, a man after my own heart. Have you read my article "A Summary and Perspective" Its a tongue in cheek look at the whole issue.
The article i have that has yet to be published contains some damming accusations against the USAF and a few individuals involved in the incident. Admin and myself are sitting on this for a while as it could instigate some litigation which we do not want.
My post name is Observer as i used to be in the Royal Observer Corps, hence my interest in military aviation.
This forum was started for those interested in the Rendlesham Forest UFO or i prefer incident. It welcomes all theories no matter how silly or ludicrous they may seem. Some are quite compelling and may have some mileage in them, where as others are not so convincing.
There have been some great discussions and we have a sensible and very helpful admin who keeps an eye on us all, not to mention his own input from time to time.
I have submitted many theories over time, some have been in my view compelling where as others not so. At the end of the day, no theory or senario that has been posted on this forum is or has been provable yet.
I hope you continue to make a contribution to this forum and i look forward to reading any posts you submit.
Regards
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Biffer » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:09 pm
Hi Observer (Forewarned is Forearmed, and all that),
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten this was predominately an American incident, so I should have known the ugly face of 'litigation' would crop up eventually. The US legal system, IMHO, has effectively suppressed the truth and denied justice to more people than Hitler and Stalin combined (OK, I overstate my case a tad, but you see where I'm coming from).
There's no easy answer to this if you and/or your American contact are fearful of being sued. It depends how important you feel the issue is, and how strongly you care about it. You (or whoever) need to have the strength of your convictions and blow the whistle. If your evidence against certain individuals is strong you have little to fear. But if you can't prove what you say you need to keep digging till you find the 'smoking gun'.
I think you know my feelings about it being a hoax. But if I turn out to be entirely wrong about that, then someone needs to be brought to task for the damage that's been done to others.
I'm thinking specifically of Jim Penniston, a man who's experience has left him suffering Post Traumatic Stress to this very day. No doubt there are others. There are those, for instance, who say Larry Warren was never involved in the incident, while others claim his memories of 'aliens' were chemically induced to discredit the whole story. I don't know. I can only tell you what Larry told me, which is that he's still suffering nightmares about it.
Does your contact claim to have participated in the 'hoax', or is he telling you what he's heard second hand?
If he claims to have been involved directly, ask him to explain in detail how it was carried out. He doesn't need to name names, or make accusations. All he needs to do is enlighten us as to how they managed to create the scenario as testified to by the many witnesses (silent objects, taking off vertically through the trees, breaking up into smaller objects, etc, etc).
Come to think of it ... why doesn't he openly reveal his identity? Doing so wouldn't compromise what he might reveal later if stronger evidence comes to light and can only strengthen confidence in what he's saying now.
Until that day, my friend, I'm putting as much faith in finding the resolution to this case as I am in ever finding out what's going on in "Lost".
Cheers!
Biffer
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten this was predominately an American incident, so I should have known the ugly face of 'litigation' would crop up eventually. The US legal system, IMHO, has effectively suppressed the truth and denied justice to more people than Hitler and Stalin combined (OK, I overstate my case a tad, but you see where I'm coming from).
There's no easy answer to this if you and/or your American contact are fearful of being sued. It depends how important you feel the issue is, and how strongly you care about it. You (or whoever) need to have the strength of your convictions and blow the whistle. If your evidence against certain individuals is strong you have little to fear. But if you can't prove what you say you need to keep digging till you find the 'smoking gun'.
I think you know my feelings about it being a hoax. But if I turn out to be entirely wrong about that, then someone needs to be brought to task for the damage that's been done to others.
I'm thinking specifically of Jim Penniston, a man who's experience has left him suffering Post Traumatic Stress to this very day. No doubt there are others. There are those, for instance, who say Larry Warren was never involved in the incident, while others claim his memories of 'aliens' were chemically induced to discredit the whole story. I don't know. I can only tell you what Larry told me, which is that he's still suffering nightmares about it.
Does your contact claim to have participated in the 'hoax', or is he telling you what he's heard second hand?
If he claims to have been involved directly, ask him to explain in detail how it was carried out. He doesn't need to name names, or make accusations. All he needs to do is enlighten us as to how they managed to create the scenario as testified to by the many witnesses (silent objects, taking off vertically through the trees, breaking up into smaller objects, etc, etc).
Come to think of it ... why doesn't he openly reveal his identity? Doing so wouldn't compromise what he might reveal later if stronger evidence comes to light and can only strengthen confidence in what he's saying now.
Until that day, my friend, I'm putting as much faith in finding the resolution to this case as I am in ever finding out what's going on in "Lost".
Cheers!
Biffer
WARNING: May contain traces of wit and irony.
- Biffer
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:59 am
The Crucial Reason
by Observer » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:12 pm
Hi
This is a revelation and certainly contraversial.
I don't think for one moment that Larry Warren was telling lies in his book and i think he told it as he saw it. There may have been bits that were off mark do to possible drug treatment by the security services that de briefed him, who knows.
As for the name places that were cronically miss spelt along with the adendum explaining the bloopers, i suggest that any serious author would not just rely on the computer's spell and grammer check, they would check a map of where they were writing about so they got it right. Well i do any way.
This new theory i only half believe but is worth investigating just like all the other theories we have seen.
The trouble is, there will be a few that never want it to be a man made incident where as others like myself hopefully have an open mind to all senarios.
Observer
This is a revelation and certainly contraversial.
I don't think for one moment that Larry Warren was telling lies in his book and i think he told it as he saw it. There may have been bits that were off mark do to possible drug treatment by the security services that de briefed him, who knows.
As for the name places that were cronically miss spelt along with the adendum explaining the bloopers, i suggest that any serious author would not just rely on the computer's spell and grammer check, they would check a map of where they were writing about so they got it right. Well i do any way.
This new theory i only half believe but is worth investigating just like all the other theories we have seen.
The trouble is, there will be a few that never want it to be a man made incident where as others like myself hopefully have an open mind to all senarios.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
Radiation at Rendlesham
by IanR » Fri May 18, 2007 5:12 pm
They [the MoD] discovered that the radiation readings found by Halt, Nevilles etc. were 'signifcantly higher than expected' - but that's it.
Actually they didn't. Nick Pope asserts that the readings were higher than normal., but that's not the same httng. See
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham4.htm
Ian
- IanR
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 12:13 pm
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
