Greetings

[DeanF]

Having had some initial trouble registering, I'm now here.

Just to give you a guys a little information about me. I'm an electronics engineer, who's been working in information technology for the last 15 years.
Although I've always been a civilian I have worked on some 'sensitive' military bases in the UK in the area of communications. Given the public nature of this forum, I really don't want to say any more than that on that topic.

I've also worked in radar in the development of software for a radar system, though I wouldn't describe myself as a radar engineer.
All round, with the engineering degree, means I have a very good understanding of technology and maths and physics.
And this probably why I'm intrigued by the UFO phenomena.

Do I believe in UFOs? The answer isn't yes. I'm more of a skeptic and I'm more inclined to find a physical, earthly explanation for incidents.
A book written by Stanton Friedman made me re-evaluate my stance, with his engineering background I can relate to him and I understand the thoroughness of his research, trust me guys, this guy is incredibly thorough. With so much rubbish out there, Friedman in my mind, stands out over the rest, and with his scientific/engineering background means he has an understanding of the real world and how it works which most UFO researchers won't have.

My Interest in Rendlesham? With so many UFO incidents around the world, they took place in far-off lands, by people whose backgrounds weren't scientific/engineering based, whose veracity couldn't be truely established, people that were old and memories defective, but Rendlesham Forest? - it took place when I was a teenager and I still remember it to this day. I wasn't there, but I remember the news reports at the time and soon after. I remember the audio recording by Charles Halt and how the authorities suggested it was the flashing light of the lighthouse on the coast.

There were too many people involved, from security police right up to the deputy base commander, people in different locations, and allegedly radar returns from the device too. Something happened. This wasn't a case of one old man recounting an incident with a UFO who had questionable motives.

I read some of the book by Colonel Corso USAF (retired), you'd think that being ex-military the book would be truthful, accurate.
It's nothing of the sort, some statements may be truthful, but most of what I read was pure fiction. He talked about the seeding of technology from the crashed UFO at Roswell, with my electronics engineering education at University and having a very keen interest in silicon chips (I used to design them), I rapidly lost interest in the book and the credibility of Colonel Philip Coro was destroyed - in my eyes.
With so much fiction in the book, the truth, was lost amongst it, and I could no longer place faith in any of what I was reading as being an accurate recollection of accounts.

In the course of my work I used to do (which was highly classified) for the military, I came across one individual around 5 years ago that claimed that he knew or had been told by someone that the UFO was a F117A stealth fighter. Given the triangular shape that seemed plausible, although it didn't fit entirely with the 'facts' that had been revealed years earlier. I interpreted it just as hearsay, chinese whispers, and it certainly couldn't be substantiated.

I recall walking on to the base at RAF Mildenhall some years ago, for their annual air-show and walking past, seeing the F117A Stealth Fighter, being on display for the first time outside of the USA, (still have a photograph of it somewhere too!) .
I have very keen interest in military aviation too, avionics, flight control systems, communications technology.

I don't think there's been a cover-up with regards to the British Royal Air Force, from what I recall from all those years ago, the RAF have very little involvement in this, they simply weren't interested. Their involvement extended as far as a few memos being exchanged (if I recall) with an RAF Squadron Leader that was the RAF liason officer on the USAF airbase at the time.

In later years, documents were released under the American FOIA (or it's precursor), which revealed some interesting things, but what really matters to me, is the testimony, the recollection of the deputy base commander at the time, Charles Halt.
He was there in the forest, and now that the stealth fighter is common knowledge around the world, anyone was there that saw the UFO should be able to now confirm or debunk the claim the UFO was a stealth fighter.

The thing is, 30 years have passed, people's recollections are not that good. The fine detail will be lost. Already I've read stories where two so called witnesses to the incident, who apparently were standing side by side are now giving quite different testimonies.

All the information needs to be gathered, more weight placed on the documents that were written 30 years, than people's recollections.
All the actual facts ascertained and marked as being facts, with all the other information marked as possibly being incorrect.
And a proper analysis carried out.

I've recently read that some expert on Geiger counters and the particular model that was used at the time, is rubbishing the increased radiation levels found on the ground, that they were still so low as to be meaningless.
That may be true, but it conveniently forgets one key thing: it doesn't actually matter that the Geiger counter was inaccurate, it doesn't matter that the level was very low and still considered to be background radiation, what matters is there was a change in the count rate, a significant increase in the count rate in 3 areas of the ground.

Something must be causing the Geiger counter to click faster, to measure a higher reading.
The question is: is there a pattern to the places where the increased radiation levels were found, (the answer is I think yes)
could that pattern be caused by geology?
Rocks in Devon are known to produce increased levels of radiation (radon gas).

Could those increased levels in radiation on the ground be caused by natural causes, is the placement of them random or is there a pattern to them?
Did their placement and number fit with legs on a triangular shaped craft landing? Did anyone actually see legs on the triangular shaped craft?

To my mind, one expert on Geiger counters simply stating that the model in those days used wasn't sensitive enough, wasn't accurate enough and that the levels of radiation monitored were so low as to still be classed as background radiation doesn't cut the mustard with me, that one fact (or 3) is not sufficient to rule things out.

One thing does worry me:
There were a variety of things taking place that night, including a flashing light on the coast, re-entry of some space vehicle and Halt talks about a light breaking up in to pieces. There were other things happening that night that were producing light in the sky. and these various things have been put forward as explanations.

If these other light incidents weren't present in this story, then the case for the UFO would be very strong indeed.

Ok, that's turned out to be quite a long introduction, perhaps it's worth kicking of some new threads to discuss the issues.
But I'm keen to try to identify what really are facts, and keep those separate, build them up, and keep out the falsehoods.
I think there's a danger of everything, truth, fiction, uncertainty all being thrown into the mix and us not really ever getting to the truth as to what happened that night.

[Deep Purple]

Hi Dean,
That was a long intro!
As you rightly point out there may be rational explanantions for the RFI or otherwise.
There is a possibility that the RFI was a cover for the the stealth arrival--- it would have used a model or something similar, not the actual f117a --- this was still being developed.
You also have to appreciate that somewhere along the line some people arent telling the truth... there are so many versions, so many variations. The whole incident is likely to be subject to a disinformation campaign--- so what looks like the gospel truth may not be. Even key witnesses could be in the pay of US Goverment to keep the cover up or disinformation campaign going.
Welcome to a world of the weird
Cheers
Deep Purple

[DeanF]

"As you rightly point out there may be rational explanantions for the RFI or otherwise.
There is a possibility that the RFI was a cover for the the stealth arrival--- it would have used a model or something similar, not the actual f117a --- this was still being developed"

I'm still puzzled by this, as I'm sure many people are. But let me tell you why I'm puzzled. The F117A seems to be a, a generally good fit for the shape of the UFO, the 3 legs on the ground...and given it's shape back then and because it wasn't known about, it certainly could be mistaken for a UFO, but, I think back to when details of the incident got out into the media 30 years ago, and I still remember the description of the UFO was that it was glowing, changing colour. Stealth aircraft don't glow and certainly don't change colour.

Unless they deliberately had a translucent airframe and put multicoloured LEDs inside!! But a stealth aircraft can't land vertically and it needs a runway to take off. It's possible a stealth aircraft crashed, (and I recall SR71's were alledgedly operating out of RAF Mildenhall in those years) so it's quite plausible a F117A was operating from a USAF base in the UK, and if one did crash, you can be sure there would have been a cover-up.
But there were no remains of a crashed aircraft/UFO. And no way for a conventional aircraft to take-off.

I do think we have to go back to the original testimony made by witnesses at the time, I don't believe people were lying, (though I'm sure a number of UFO cases in the USA, that's been the case), but there's always the possibility of people embellishing their accounts.
The glowing surface of the UFO is one salient point, the strange markings on the UFO is less important I feel: this could have easily been created by man...with a pot of paint!