CIA using us

[Deep Purple]

7" Diametre is quite small, and would be of the order of many household lamps, and not in the order to be sufficient as a tripod base for a much larger object say as appollo capsule size.

[Observer]

Interesting theory silvertop

This forum did go down that road about a year ago and the topic of UAV's has been discussed in a small way occasionally.

Built in inches and in the late 70's can only mean either Britain, USA or even Canada.
No body in that woods at the time mentioned engine noises such as jet, piston or even electric. We see many documenteries these days on advanced UAV's, mostly from the USA but all have engines that make a noise. If this had a noisless propulsion system can we all hazard a guess as to what type.
Its still only guess work that this craft was built using imperial measurment. In the 80' the USA were using both systems in aviation production, but for normal everday measurments say for measuring your lawn or window frame it would be in the USA inches.

For arguments sake 7" is near as damn it 28cm give or take a couple of mm.
They were not taking there measurments down to that fine a scale.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

One thing troubles me about the indentations - not only were they small, they were conical. Inverted cones. Nothing uses inverted cones as pads. Pads are usually used to disperse weight so that whatever they are supporing won't sink into soft ground or damage the surface of decks etc.. Using an inverted cone would substantially increase the load at point of contact, not disperse it over a wider area as such pads (or feet) are designed to do.

Therefore it is unlikely that whatever made the indentations was designed to support the weight of anything heavy. Conical feet aren't designed to be load bearing but they might be used to prevent something relatively light weight slipping on soft ground, on ice etc. One thing that does use conical feet is a camera tripod. This would be a large tripod but if a large video camera were used then that is the kind of tripod that would be used to support it.

These aren't the marks made by the 'craft' they are the marks made by a tripod supporting something else and that something else could have been a large tripod for a professional video camera or other equipment.

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

We had a piece of kit in our workshop that had conical feet, it wasn't that heavy, about the same weight am upright 'hoover' [Vac cleaner] and it was so it could be slid around on the smooth floor next to a vehicle that we hooked it up to. If it had flat feet it would catch on things like ridges on the floor etc.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Hi Observer, hi all

Yes, exactly. The device in your workshop wasn't a 'craft' as such - it was designed to be moved. Most devices designed to be moved around a workshop, studio, yard or whatever and take relatively light loads have castors or roller wheels. Machines (other than aircraft) designed to land on a soft or uncertain surfaces have flat faces to the pads to spread the load - heavy lift aircraft have multiple wheeled landing gear, aircraft landing on snow have skids or skis. Also, many lander modules have four landing feet not three.

Hypothesis: Device 'x' crashes down through the trees (reason not known but not important here). It is not large but is quite heavy. If damaged it could (a) detonate or (b) leak radiation. It requires immediate but circumspect recovery - but to enable that it must first be inspected. To complete the inspection the device must be lifted clear of the ground. However due to the radhaz risk, it must be shielded and the inspection team must wear protective suits. To lift it, they need a block and tackle. In case of a radiation leak, they need a protective cover of some kind to contain the leak. Once the device has been removed the area will need to be checked for contamination.

A large tripod is erected over the device. A block and tackle is suspended from below the apex of the tripod and attached to the device. The whole tripod assembly is covered with a shield made of a flexible material....not sure what but it has the same protective propterties as lead. The inside of what is now a tent, is illuminated to prove adequate light for the inspection team to work. They enter/leave the tent but are dressed in NBCD suits or similar. As the tripod takes the weight, the feet sink into the ground. The intersting thing is that the depressions were of equal depth. This suggests an even load - unlikely if a craft came down through the trees. Something landing after crashing through trees is unlikely to exert even pressure on all three legs/feet. Almost certainly it would come down on one or two legs/feet and there would be deeper impressions at the point of first impact. Also, if the weight crashed down on one or two legs, one or more would probably collapse and there would be more marks on the ground, not three evenly spaced impressions of identical depth.

To continue with the hypothesis. The inspection has been going on unnoticed - until the SP see the lights. A diversion is initiated - smoke, flares, possibly even some temporarily debilitating chemical weapon spray. Some of the SP team are following the diversion team who are moving through the forest, away from the inspection tent, waving red lights, letting off flares, etc. Others in the team happen upon the 'tent'...

A couple of questions:

1. Why were lightalls required to investigate lights? If investigating lights at night the last thing you need are lightalls to ruin your night vision.
2. Why where some of the SP carrying notepads and at least one camera? Who goes on guard armed with a notepad and camera, especially at night? The opportunities for making sketches and taking photos must be minimal to say the least - unless you were expecting to make sketches and take phots. Guard duty at a quiet location is boring. Try being QM on the gangway of a small ship alongside at night in Pompey harbour when most of the rest of the ship's company have gone ashore for the evening....

Doing the usual rounds, keeping an events log up to date, then watching TV, reading a book, smoking a fag, drinking tea....they are the activities taking place in a quiet guardroom, especially at Christmas time.

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Now this interesting, and a fresh angle to look at, In a nut shell, something dodgy was dropped/placed in the forest maybe a couple of days earlier and they had a diversionary plan running when Halt and co arrived, but it didn't work as Penniston and others saw the object and touched it. Men in space suits [Warren] Probably NBC suits. Suspected Rad Haz.

We must go back to Margeret Thatchers comment to Georgina Bruni,

"You must get your facts right" and "You Can't Tell the People"
The first part of that comment is inviting Bruni to carry on investigating and when the facts are correct then tell. but the second comment carries much more sinister tone.
Thatcher knew of the enormity of what Bruni was doing and was at least fearful of any thing Bruni might make public.

I've met Maggie a couple of times as i worked in her old constituency and she came over [love her or hate her] as a down to earth woman with an agile scientific brain but also a compassionate person who was very much the defender of the British way of life and its subjects. [some thing we don't see these days] Yes, she was fearful of the impact to the public if Bruni ever found the truth and made it public. That says bucket loads, and i have to be honest and say that my thoughts are now with N weapons or componants of.

So Maggie knew what it was, i wonder who told her, her defence chiefs/commons defence committee, or higher such as the US President??? I suspect it was an appologetic phone call.
Sorry maggie, we had a slight mishap, dropped a nuke in Suffolk but its all taken care of.

Observer

[Observer]

She wouldn't tell Bruni who was/is a proffesional journalist, which is why i have been reluctant in the past to contact her, plus she is getting on a bit now.
I think the best approach would be through one of her friends or family and i guess Carol Thatcher would be a good starting point.
She may have a web site.

Any body fancy having a go?

Observer

[puddlepirate]

A quick calculation suggests an object no more than 6ft dia or up 9ft long by 18in high by 18in wide. No marks of a hard landing so came down by 'chute or was lowered.

Oddly, those dimensions, plus the lack of any other marks on the ground and the fact that one guy was being comforted by a NCO could mean a body. A body badly cut about as it came through the trees. Unlikely but possible.

[IanR]

With regards to the three indentations left in the ground, does anybody know the exact measurements of these ?

See here:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham5.htm

Ian

[Observer]

Hi Ian

As far as i'm concerned the 3 indentations in the forest floor are, at least at the moment circumstancial and hard to prove what made them.

Assuming that as one post said they were of equal distance apart and the foot impressions were of equal size does suggest that nature had no part to play.

As for debunking the event as a UFO, your preaching to the converted, well at least me. I strongly believe that an event took place in that forest and it was man made. The light house in my view did feature as part of the observations by some but incidental to the actual event.

Observer

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

Your calculations are interesting [nothings impossible], was it somebody still attached to their ejector seat, or still inside an escape capsule? Both would come down by parachute.

Observer

[puddlepirate]

Just a quick recap on the measurements: There is a series of videos on You Tube about the Rendlesham incident and in one (source: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FX7YNYSNnxQ&feature=related) the dimensions between the depressions are given as 3.4m, which is approx 11ft. Another source on here suggests only 9ft. My calculations were based on a triangle with sides of 11ft. However, things move and we now have new contributors who were there. I was not there so my theories are invalid as they as based solely on witness statements and the few incidents that are known to have happened.

However, just a couple of comments. Something did hit the landing lights. That is known. The arrangement of the lights is such that if struck, the upper poles holding the lights would swivel - but a whole row had to be replaced. This suggests there could have been damage to whatever it was that hit them. It also suggests a fixed wing rather than rotary wing aircraft. I'd guess that the average aircraft from Woodbridge would be an A-10 - not sure of take off speed but probably somewhere around 120kts (about 150mph) - perhaps slower. The 81st Fighter Wing website at http://twinbases.org.uk/history/history81st.htm: states that the 81st "...Began conversion to A-10s in late 1978, and the mission changed to provide close air support and battlefield air interdiction in support of NATO ground forces.
Conducted joint operations with US and British ground forces training for close air support." So it was most likely an A10 that hit the lights . The role of the 81st seems to lead back to the situation prevailing along the Polish / Russian border at that time.

Larry Warren states in 'Left at East Gate' (Pages 40 - 41) that ...."NATO forces were ready to respond if the Red Army crossed the line. Most of our A-10 tank busters had already left for forward operating locations in West Germany" He goes on to state that "I was assigned to Bentwaters Perimeter Post 18. It was not a very important position in comparison to active aircraft areas or the weapons storage area. I checked out my M16 rifle from the armory at 11:15 and was dropped off at my post. Manned only during alerts, it was at the end of the Bentwaters flight line at the very end of the runway." If true, this confirms Warren was at Bentwaters and that there was an alert.

Now, why lie about that? I just don't see it.

So we know the lights were damaged, we know MOST A-10's had left for Germany and we know there was an alert.

Also, I know from a good friend whose husband worked for Rediffusion and who visited Bentwaters frequently at that time (to repair TV sets) that only one person was actually at the gate. This person would check names against a list of expected persons and phone ahead to wherever the problem was. Only the engineer was allowed out of the van, anyone with him had to remain in the van. After passing through the gate, the engineer reported to a reception and was then escorted to wherever the faulty kit was. However, from my own experience at AFSOUTH and the NSA at Angano, Italy (anyone remember the Tennis Hotel?), although there might be only one guy actually on the gate he has back-up nearby.

We also know that the deputy base commander and at least one other officer and several NCO's entered the forest. We know the deputy base commander Lt Col (later Col) Halt submitted a memo to MoD.

Therefore, I doubt this could have been a hoax. Airmen mucking around on base is one thing. Lt Cols, NCO's and the rest charging around a forest in the middle of the night and a deputy base commander sending a memo to MoD is something else entirely.

Hoax? No.

Something falling off an aircraft after hitting the lights, en route to a forward base in Germany or even an aircraft coming down shortly after take-off (as per the incident at Heathrow some years back where there was surprisingly little damage to the aircraft but the passenges were dead in their seats and there was no fire), with the pilot ejecting but coming down in the forest only to suffer injury as he falls through the trees. Possible

Stealing a nuclear weapon? Certainly not.

Alien craft - difficult. The Belgians chased one. Several reports of such craft.

Way too much confusion here. Personally I favour something highly classified falling off or an aircraft coming down, with either event followed by a covert recovery that employed diversionay tactics in an attempt to keep people away from whatever it was.

[Observer]

Hi puddlepirate

I go along with most of what you say and it makes sense.
The A-10 was a single seat aircraft with a top speed some where in the region of a WW-2 Spitfire. Its take off speed would vary depending on loads carried [Graham Haynes could possibly answer this].

If an aircraft 'belly' flopped [Tial plane stall due to climb out at to steep an angle of attack and at too low a speed as happened to the BEA Trident, most of the plane would be intact but written off. This surely would have been noticed by the locals plus there was no damage evidence of this any where in the area.

It could of course have been another type of aircraft with 2 seats, and it ended up in the drink with the occupants landing in the forest after ejection.

I prefer the senario of some thing dropping off an aircraft or dropped from a chopper, either way, some thing classified.

Observer

[Observer]

Yes indeed, there is much confusion getting in the way.

I'm also in favour of something falling off an aircraft, but lets stop there for a moment and rewind a bit.

I prefer to take Penniston and others description of the object they saw at face value. We must consider the approximate size that was described and its shape. Now we must assertain what sort of object or bit of kit that fits the description fell off an aircraft. Would some thing of the size and shape described be carried externally [depending on what type of airplane] or internally [depending on type of plane].
Or was it a part of the plane its self?

Observer

[puddlepirate]

I thought we might have been on the right track - Observer's trajectory - aircraft taking off, hits the lights, suffers damage, pilot(s) eject, aircraft carries on, perhaps something breaks off and lands in field but the bulk of the aircraft remains airborne long enough to make it to the coast before it comes down in the sea. At 120kts to cover the 6 miles from the runway to the sea would take just over 2 minutes. No time at all. Given that what was supposed to have been seen in the field was some kind of ceramic material then I don't know...maybe the wing or tailfin of a stealth. Some unknown aircraft type...no idea what. The aircraft (just keeping with this hypothesis for a moment) would probably have got no higher than 500ft - a very low level for the pilot(s) to eject. Then there is the issue about odd symbols, something that looks kind of old but new with pipes and other stuff (that could be hydraulics etc within whatever broke off).

Evenly spaced depressions, each 1.5in deep means that whatever made them supported an even load, unlikely if whatever it was came crashing down through the trees. Also, it must have been heavy. Even under the trees in late December, the ground would have been fairly hard. I'll stick with my tripod/tent/block and tackle theory on this one. Somebody placed something there in response to whatever came down though the trees - and to add to the confusion there was, apparently, more than one landing site. This suggests several parts of something coming down in different places.

To be absolutely honest, the whole thing is now such a confusion of conflicting stories/statements that all we have is the damage to the landing lights and Halt's memo. Absolutely everything else in between could be complete b****ks.

Halt says the depressions were 1.5ins deep and 7ins in dia. He says he saw the depressions and saw the lights as stated in para 2 and 3 but what he witnessed is such a mishmash of different lights that what he saw could have been fireworks, stars, meteors, helos doing a search, aircraft port / starboard lights, a halogen searchlight viewed from an oblique angle. The only really interesting statement is from para 3, viz "... Later in the night a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. "

The first part could have been something to do with the service torch with a red gel over the lens that was found in the forest. The second part could have been a flare. And both those suggest a diversion to draw Halt and his men away from whatever the unknown object was.

[ghaynes]

Hi puddlepirate

I go along with most of what you say and it makes sense.
The A-10 was a single seat aircraft with a top speed some where in the region of a WW-2 Spitfire. Its take off speed would vary depending on loads carried [Graham Haynes could possibly answer this].

If an aircraft 'belly' flopped [Tial plane stall due to climb out at to steep an angle of attack and at too low a speed as happened to the BEA Trident, most of the plane would be intact but written off. This surely would have been noticed by the locals plus there was no damage evidence of this any where in the area.

It could of course have been another type of aircraft with 2 seats, and it ended up in the drink with the occupants landing in the forest after ejection.

I prefer the senario of some thing dropping off an aircraft or dropped from a chopper, either way, some thing classified.

Observer

Afraid I don't buy any theory regarding an A-10 crashing on take-off. Bearing in mind it was Christmas and the base was on stand-down, there would not have been any scheduled movements. Even if an A-10 did develop a problem on take off, the runway at Woodbridge was long enough for the pilot to abort and stay within the confines of the base.
Additionally, for an aircraft on take off to hit the landing lights in question, it would have to be using Runway 09. Runway 27 was used predominantly at Woodbridge (as the wind usually had a westerly component) so we would need to find out the wind direction on the night in question.
Regarding forward deployment to Germany, the 81st TFW always had one third of its A-10s deployed to its Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) at Sembach, Leipheim, Ahlhorn and Norvenich. As I mentioned somewhere else on this forum, A-10s would not be carrying live ordnance while transiting from Bentwaters/Woodbridge to the FOLs. They would usually only carry luggage pods (and occasionally an external fuel tank).

We seem to be going around in circles!!
Regards.

Graham

[Observer]

I don't buy an air crash either, and never thought an A-10 was involved.
I initially thought that there was a possibility that something fell off an A-10 and maybe in the last days of flying before they stood down for Christmas, but there aint nothing that plane carries that fits the description.

What i do think is something was dropped into the woods or was parachuted in, either by accident or it was deliberate? This is what we should all be concentrating on.

Like Roswell which is now totally corrupted by band wagon jumpers etc, Redlesham seems to be going the same way, not so much band wagon jumpers but going round in circles. We are all guilty of muddying the waters, so i for one will be giving some more focussed investigation into what we already know and will try to keep guesswork on the back burner.

The geometry of the indentations in the forest is just that, geometry, and i doubt very much that deciding if the foot print was 7" accross or 12" across is going to lead us any nearer to the answer.

All these alleged measurments are saying is that people are changing their story. I'm not even worried they have, i think its irrelevant.

Observer

[ghaynes]

What i do think is something was dropped into the woods or was parachuted in, either by accident or it was deliberate? This is what we should all be concentrating on.
Observer

It would definitely be useful to know the wind direction at the time. If Runway 27 was in use then you could discount either a plane crashing on take off or something being dropped from a plane on take off.
Regards.

Graham

[redsocks]

Hi ppulatie and welcome,

Great to have somebody on the forum who was acually there at the time.Can I ask you a couple of straight questions:What do you think of the ARRS theory about the Apollo capsule being dropped into the forest by the ARRS guys and spotted later by the 81st security police?it does fit the discription given by Penniston. Secondly there is a lot of UFO folk law when it comes to what happened at Rendlesham in 1980 among airmen who served there as I know because I have spoke to them myself and none of them claim the UFO/alien story is true,its actually laughed off as a big joke.Now bearing in mind you were stationed there at the time and worked in the right section with the 81st can I ask what you think what went on that night and do you buy the UFO/Alien story?

Redsocks

[puddlepirate]

Hi all

We are getting nowhere. Facts:

1. Something hit the landing lights
2. Lt Col Halt sent a memo to RAF/CC (odd - cc in civilian terms usually means copy addressee so perhaps the memo was sent to somewhere else as well - the action or 'to' addressee?)
3. Lt Col Halt was promoted

If we believe Warren, then Bentwaters was on alert because he had been assigned to a guard post only manned during an alert

If we believe Halt, Englund and the other witnesses then there were several groups of airmen in the forest and some were there before Burroughs, Penniston, Warren, Bustinza et al arrived.

If we believe the witnesses then something major occured.

For the USAF to go off base in such numbers means whatever it was, was a major event and it had to be something involving the US otherwise it would have been handled by MoD, UK police etc.

So, either something happened or nothing happened and everyone, including Halt are lying.

The incident involving the landing lights must have been logged and probably investigated. A whole row had to be replaced so somebody, probably the base commander, would want a report. It (apparently) wasn't an A-10 and I think we can safely assume it wasn't Santa Claus on his sleigh, so do any of you who were there know what hit the lights? I keep on about this but we need to know so it can be ticked off the list.