Hi all
Obviously, I've got far too much time on my hands today.....I really must get a life!
As Observer says, there were no NW at Woodbridge, only at Bentwaters - but Bentwaters is a couple of miles away so if Halt was standing in the middle of the forest when he saw the beams of light, he would have had a very restricted view so could probably only observe activity almost directly overhead and would not be able to see a craft projecting beams down onto Bentwaters unless that craft was very high and Halt knew exactly in which direction Bentwaters lay. Of course, he might have been standing in the field after crossing what he described as a creek. Also, nobody other than Warren mentions helo's - and HH53's are loud so why don't the other witnesses mention them? Surely a couple of helos flying / hovering over the forest in the middle of the night, with lights, noise, airmen running about. floodlights, trucks and so forth would have roused the local population and especially those residents whose houses border the field - the farmer and the chap who owned the cattle. What about the residents of Folly House, right at the end of the Woodbridge runway? If civvies saw anything, then surely the occupants of Folly House must have done but they aren't mentioned and none of the books on Rendlesham (as far as I am aware) mention them either. Heck, I live in a decent neighbourhood and we only have to have a police helo hover nearby for a minute or two and half the street is out looking at what is going on. I cannot fathom why nobody saw helos or beams of light other than Col Halt and one of the airmen. It just does not add up.
CIA using us
by puddlepirate » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:14 pm
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
by redsocks » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:59 am
Hi Puddlepirate,
You mention the HH53's and why would the locals not have noticed this,well from what I gather the HH53's where always flying around Woodbridge and the UFO story only came to light in what 82 83.I think any local would be hard pushed to remember what was flying about on the specific night.Another thing concerns me with the locals why did it take them so long to tell there story,they all came forward around the same time as the story hit the papers.....I went to Rendlesham the other evening and the conditions were the same as the weather conditions on the evening 25th Dec 1980,I know this because looking through the posts someone took the trouble to find out what the weather conditions were like,one thing struck me with most of the greenery gone and with mist was that the lighthouse is visable in certain places within the forest.With the UFO hysteria of the previous night and security guys proberly aware and looking into the forest the light house is visable.Also the trail the airman took and where they ended up at the edge of the forest is directly on line with the light house.First night 67th ARRS prank.......second night UFO hysteria following a light house..who knows thats the million dollar question,its all the stuff inbetween that poses the mystery here,was this done to cover up what was housed like my mate says at Bentwaters.. its possible.If Halt dosent own up to a prank and goes deeper into the mystery with more revelations 28 years later defies belief and thats the issue here,why o why would he keep this going if he knows it was a hoax thats the intrigue thats what I cant get my head around....
Redsocks
You mention the HH53's and why would the locals not have noticed this,well from what I gather the HH53's where always flying around Woodbridge and the UFO story only came to light in what 82 83.I think any local would be hard pushed to remember what was flying about on the specific night.Another thing concerns me with the locals why did it take them so long to tell there story,they all came forward around the same time as the story hit the papers.....I went to Rendlesham the other evening and the conditions were the same as the weather conditions on the evening 25th Dec 1980,I know this because looking through the posts someone took the trouble to find out what the weather conditions were like,one thing struck me with most of the greenery gone and with mist was that the lighthouse is visable in certain places within the forest.With the UFO hysteria of the previous night and security guys proberly aware and looking into the forest the light house is visable.Also the trail the airman took and where they ended up at the edge of the forest is directly on line with the light house.First night 67th ARRS prank.......second night UFO hysteria following a light house..who knows thats the million dollar question,its all the stuff inbetween that poses the mystery here,was this done to cover up what was housed like my mate says at Bentwaters.. its possible.If Halt dosent own up to a prank and goes deeper into the mystery with more revelations 28 years later defies belief and thats the issue here,why o why would he keep this going if he knows it was a hoax thats the intrigue thats what I cant get my head around....
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
Why indeed
by Observer » Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:22 pm
Hi redsocks
Many people have visited Rendlesham forest interested in this great mystery and a few have reported back that they could see the light house flashing its 5 second light flash quite clearly from certain places in the woods. What most people tend to forget is that since the great hurricane in the late 80's, the forest lay out after its replanting has changed quite dramatically. Thus, seeing the light house from 'alleged' landing sights today can only ever be conjecture.
I aggree with your sentiments concerning the time spans and those such as locals not coming forward until the news papers broke the story seems a trifle odd. Having said that, the locals would have been very used to all sorts of aerial activity at most times of the day and night and would probably ignore most as just general activities of an operational air base.
As for Halt and a few others not coming out with the full story, i can only say that [especially in the US] there is lots of money to be made from lecture tours, interviews and TV Docs, which does have incentive for keeping this mystery alive for monetery gain.
On a more serious note, perhaps Halt and others are protecting their military pensions as the incident was serious and required a government cover up, Halt would then be part of the cover up and perhaps still is? Although this is my theory, i find Halt very genuine and sincere when ever he is interviewed.
I would like to be proved wrong, but so far, no body has one way or another.
Observer
Many people have visited Rendlesham forest interested in this great mystery and a few have reported back that they could see the light house flashing its 5 second light flash quite clearly from certain places in the woods. What most people tend to forget is that since the great hurricane in the late 80's, the forest lay out after its replanting has changed quite dramatically. Thus, seeing the light house from 'alleged' landing sights today can only ever be conjecture.
I aggree with your sentiments concerning the time spans and those such as locals not coming forward until the news papers broke the story seems a trifle odd. Having said that, the locals would have been very used to all sorts of aerial activity at most times of the day and night and would probably ignore most as just general activities of an operational air base.
As for Halt and a few others not coming out with the full story, i can only say that [especially in the US] there is lots of money to be made from lecture tours, interviews and TV Docs, which does have incentive for keeping this mystery alive for monetery gain.
On a more serious note, perhaps Halt and others are protecting their military pensions as the incident was serious and required a government cover up, Halt would then be part of the cover up and perhaps still is? Although this is my theory, i find Halt very genuine and sincere when ever he is interviewed.
I would like to be proved wrong, but so far, no body has one way or another.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:41 pm
I would have thought some of the locals would have been wondering why people were flying around in Helos at night over the airbase at xmas time and would have remembered.
If you think about it , yes they are used to the noise, but at night around the xmas time it should have been very quiet and I think some of the locals would be thinking, "what the hell are those clowns playing at flying around the base at xmas, havent they got a party to go to?"
After reading Georgini Bruni's book she mentioned that the base radio operators recalled a huge increase in important "flash" messages after the event, would this have occurred is it was a simple hoax?
But then if they did not know it was a hoax did the cause the increase in messages?
If they had become aware of a dumped capsule, some one must have thought it was some sort of prank and called in the airforce security police to investigate, also would they have let the news go back across the pond or tried to deal with it more locally?
I'm not a military person so its difficult for me to answer these questions.
As ever more questions than answers. When we lie and deceive what a tangled web we weave.
I must say its enjoyable reading the posts and the different ideas.
If you think about it , yes they are used to the noise, but at night around the xmas time it should have been very quiet and I think some of the locals would be thinking, "what the hell are those clowns playing at flying around the base at xmas, havent they got a party to go to?"
After reading Georgini Bruni's book she mentioned that the base radio operators recalled a huge increase in important "flash" messages after the event, would this have occurred is it was a simple hoax?
But then if they did not know it was a hoax did the cause the increase in messages?
If they had become aware of a dumped capsule, some one must have thought it was some sort of prank and called in the airforce security police to investigate, also would they have let the news go back across the pond or tried to deal with it more locally?
I'm not a military person so its difficult for me to answer these questions.
As ever more questions than answers. When we lie and deceive what a tangled web we weave.
I must say its enjoyable reading the posts and the different ideas.
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
by puddlepirate » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:19 pm
Hi Deep Purple
All signal message traffic has a handling time dependent upon precedence (think of mail being sent by hand of courier where a receipt is required, or express delivery, or first then second class post). 'Flash' has the highest precedence and therefore the shortest desk to desk handling time. Consequently, 'flash' messages are reserved for only the most important traffic where considerations regarding encryption or radio silence are ignored. Almost certainly 'flash' would be used for broken arrow traffic.
If Bruni has verified that 'flash' was used then whatever those signal messages related to, it was of the highest precedence and therefore, exceptionally important. Traffic relating to 'odd lights' is most unlikely to qualify. However, 'we are receiving incoming fire' would....this is only used as an example because obviously the bases were not under attack.
What concerns me now is that apart from one man living a couple of miles away, we only have the 'witness' accounts regarding the incident in/over Rendlesham Forest/Tangham Wood. There are no independent third party accounts at all. None. No radar, no civilian sightings, no UK police, no RAF, nothing. Even with all the commotion going on, nobody in any of the surrounding villages saw anything odd or asked any questions nor did the farmer whose 'barnyard animals' were going crazy. Thus I'm led to think of the dog that barked in the nightime....
It was [apparently] a US led op but given it took place on UK sovereign territory, the US must have had liaison with the UK govt and been given permission to take charge. In 1980 things were not as now. in 1980, the US didn't just charge around as if they owned the place. If permission was granted it must have been because it was something the US military did and only they had the necessary on-site kit to deal with it quickly - or nothing actually happened in the forest at all and the whole story was concocted to divert attention from what actually happened elsewhere in the area - or even the story itself is the joke!
Given the story didn't come out until two years afterwards, then that suggests a back-up put in place just in case, not a successful diversion inititiated at the time of the event. After all, the UFO story only came into play later on. Tapes, memos and the rest could just be so much BS invented to support it. There are so many inconsistencies that when you really look at it, the whole Rendlesham thing takes on the appearance of a complete spoof.
I can just image a couple of our American cousins, in a pub and about to return stateside, on being asked did they enjoy it over here, coming up on the spur of the moment with a wild story about odd lights in the forest (after all, never let the truth get in the way of a good dit) then returning back to barracks dead chuffed that the daft Brits had swallowed it hook, line and sinker....
Today of course, that spoof is a good earner for some so needs to be perpetuated at all costs.
All signal message traffic has a handling time dependent upon precedence (think of mail being sent by hand of courier where a receipt is required, or express delivery, or first then second class post). 'Flash' has the highest precedence and therefore the shortest desk to desk handling time. Consequently, 'flash' messages are reserved for only the most important traffic where considerations regarding encryption or radio silence are ignored. Almost certainly 'flash' would be used for broken arrow traffic.
If Bruni has verified that 'flash' was used then whatever those signal messages related to, it was of the highest precedence and therefore, exceptionally important. Traffic relating to 'odd lights' is most unlikely to qualify. However, 'we are receiving incoming fire' would....this is only used as an example because obviously the bases were not under attack.
What concerns me now is that apart from one man living a couple of miles away, we only have the 'witness' accounts regarding the incident in/over Rendlesham Forest/Tangham Wood. There are no independent third party accounts at all. None. No radar, no civilian sightings, no UK police, no RAF, nothing. Even with all the commotion going on, nobody in any of the surrounding villages saw anything odd or asked any questions nor did the farmer whose 'barnyard animals' were going crazy. Thus I'm led to think of the dog that barked in the nightime....
It was [apparently] a US led op but given it took place on UK sovereign territory, the US must have had liaison with the UK govt and been given permission to take charge. In 1980 things were not as now. in 1980, the US didn't just charge around as if they owned the place. If permission was granted it must have been because it was something the US military did and only they had the necessary on-site kit to deal with it quickly - or nothing actually happened in the forest at all and the whole story was concocted to divert attention from what actually happened elsewhere in the area - or even the story itself is the joke!
Given the story didn't come out until two years afterwards, then that suggests a back-up put in place just in case, not a successful diversion inititiated at the time of the event. After all, the UFO story only came into play later on. Tapes, memos and the rest could just be so much BS invented to support it. There are so many inconsistencies that when you really look at it, the whole Rendlesham thing takes on the appearance of a complete spoof.
I can just image a couple of our American cousins, in a pub and about to return stateside, on being asked did they enjoy it over here, coming up on the spur of the moment with a wild story about odd lights in the forest (after all, never let the truth get in the way of a good dit) then returning back to barracks dead chuffed that the daft Brits had swallowed it hook, line and sinker....
Today of course, that spoof is a good earner for some so needs to be perpetuated at all costs.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
by puddlepirate » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:41 pm
Just a thought chaps but would those of you within easy travelling distance from London be interested in meeting up in the New Year? There's lots of great ideas on the forum but often meaning can be lost in the writing....having a chat as a group then posting the outcome on the forum could be interesting. What do you think? Lots of good pubs in London.....
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
USAF
by Observer » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:50 am
Hi
In the late 80's i was a member of the Bentwaters rod & gun club and the club house was situated on Bentwaters air field. We mixed with all ranks from pilots to privates and on many occasions we would hear them joking about the Rendlesham forest incident and the ARRS were often spoken of as a bunch of 'cowboys' or Red necks.
One of my close friends was a crew chief on the HH53 and whenever he took me down to the club he warned me to ignore the banter and ear bending he always got from other sections. Mind you he gave as good back. One such example was "here's Roy, the man who grounded an F-15 with Jolly Green Giant stickers".
Many of the sergeants, several of which were good friends and ex NAM Vets never had a good word for the officers on base.
I wrote this to show you just what kind of atmosphere and how they were always joking around in the USAF. They were the worlds best or worst practical jokers whichever way you want to look at it. It was almost protocol to be that way.
Observer
In the late 80's i was a member of the Bentwaters rod & gun club and the club house was situated on Bentwaters air field. We mixed with all ranks from pilots to privates and on many occasions we would hear them joking about the Rendlesham forest incident and the ARRS were often spoken of as a bunch of 'cowboys' or Red necks.
One of my close friends was a crew chief on the HH53 and whenever he took me down to the club he warned me to ignore the banter and ear bending he always got from other sections. Mind you he gave as good back. One such example was "here's Roy, the man who grounded an F-15 with Jolly Green Giant stickers".
Many of the sergeants, several of which were good friends and ex NAM Vets never had a good word for the officers on base.
I wrote this to show you just what kind of atmosphere and how they were always joking around in the USAF. They were the worlds best or worst practical jokers whichever way you want to look at it. It was almost protocol to be that way.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Deep Purple » Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:23 pm
Merry xmas everyone,
My thoughts are similar to those recently posted by Puddle pirate.
I'm happy to meet up in the new year, I live in Southampton which is in easy reach of London.
Any one know what time history channel documentary will be screened?
The business of the FLASH messages is interesting given their serious nature.
Anyone out there who knows any radio operators/ admin personnel working on the base at the time who could confirm whether or not there was this large increase.
Someone postively confirming that there was this increase might suggest that the incident was not a hoax but something real and totally unexpected that neeeded to be covered up
My thoughts are similar to those recently posted by Puddle pirate.
I'm happy to meet up in the new year, I live in Southampton which is in easy reach of London.
Any one know what time history channel documentary will be screened?
The business of the FLASH messages is interesting given their serious nature.
Anyone out there who knows any radio operators/ admin personnel working on the base at the time who could confirm whether or not there was this large increase.
Someone postively confirming that there was this increase might suggest that the incident was not a hoax but something real and totally unexpected that neeeded to be covered up
- Deep Purple
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm
History channel, Britains Roswell
by Observer » Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:30 am
Hi all
It seems that its only going to be broadcast on the US History channel on the 26th Dec, but check the UK channels just in case. Admin thinks it might be shown on UK History some time in Feb or March 08. Admin has been given this info from Gary Heseltine.
I have suggested a meet up perhaps in Watford as some of us live within striking distance plus its easy to get to by motor way. Meeting in London could be a night mare for some.
Have a great Christmas and New Year
Observer
It seems that its only going to be broadcast on the US History channel on the 26th Dec, but check the UK channels just in case. Admin thinks it might be shown on UK History some time in Feb or March 08. Admin has been given this info from Gary Heseltine.
I have suggested a meet up perhaps in Watford as some of us live within striking distance plus its easy to get to by motor way. Meeting in London could be a night mare for some.
Have a great Christmas and New Year
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by Wolf » Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:30 pm
Almost certainly 'flash' would be used for broken arrow traffic.
From checking up on GB's book she appears to be talking about the priorities used relating to the AUTOVON system. This stands for AUTOmatic VOice Network, which was the principal long-haul, non-secure, common user voice communications network used by the DOD for the provision of a worldwide direct distance dialling station to station service through a system of government owned and leased automatic switching and transmission facilities.
This had 5 priority levels "Routine", "Immediate", "Priority", "Flash" and "Flash Override". "Routine" being the lowest and "Flash Override" being the highest. Each installation had its own DSN (Defense Switched Network) number/prefix. Not all phone users had the facility to directly dial DSN numbers, but all users could receive Direct Inward Dial (DID) messaged.
Autovon (DSN) prefixes
Alconbury (AR) - 223
Bentwaters (WR) - 225
Greenham - 226
Heyford (UH) - 263
To dial a DSN (Defense Switched Network) number a user would dial 88 followed by the DSN code and a four-figure extension no. eg. 88-225-1110, which would have got you the operator at RAF Bentwaters.
The closest Major Autovon Exchange/Switch to RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge was at RAF Martlesham Heath (sometimes referred to as Foxhall Heath). This station also housed a technical control facility, tropospheric forward scatter radio systems and microwave links. This was manned by the 81st/2164th Communications Squadron.
Hope this gauge helps. BTW - This facility closed around the same time as the twin bases.
V/R
Wolf
-
Wolf - Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:13 pm
by Wolf » Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:47 pm
Anyone out there who knows any radio operators/ admin personnel working on the base at the time who could confirm whether or not there was this large increase.
I have been told that there was an increase in radio traffic at the time. Normally at night the radio's were pretty quiet except for the 15 minute security checks. I was also told that no alerts were called at that time period and the security levels within the NMSA(CAS)/WSA were not increased.
V/R
Wolf
-
Wolf - Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:13 pm
by redsocks » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:27 am
[quote="puddlepirate"]Just a thought chaps but would those of you within easy travelling distance from London be interested in meeting up in the New Year? There's lots of great ideas on the forum but often meaning can be lost in the writing....having a chat as a group then posting the outcome on the forum could be interesting. What do you think? Lots of good pubs in London.....[/quote]
It would be great to meet up in the new year,this website is excellent but as with all forum posts you dont really get a proper debate going,discussing the incident could shed more light.It would be great to put a rock solid theory together if possible.But if we are going to meet its got to be the Butley Oyster, Observer proberly knows it!
Redsocks
It would be great to meet up in the new year,this website is excellent but as with all forum posts you dont really get a proper debate going,discussing the incident could shed more light.It would be great to put a rock solid theory together if possible.But if we are going to meet its got to be the Butley Oyster, Observer proberly knows it!
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by redsocks » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:47 am
Hi all,
Puddlepirate brings up a good point in a previous post reguarding sovereign terratory,I recently said that Americans would't give a dam about going off base to investigate what they saw which ive been told by my mate in the USAF is incorrect.Each USAF installation has an MOD police station manned by MOD police officers who deal with everything on sovereign terratory,he says they mainly deal with snap happy plane spotters the other side off the fence but are there primarily for security threats around the base that the US have no power with.Now this begs the big question that the MOD police must have been informed that night at Rendlesham and why didnt THEY investigate the sighting?the only british police mentioned are the local bobbies but the MOD police must have been involved.
Redsocks
Puddlepirate brings up a good point in a previous post reguarding sovereign terratory,I recently said that Americans would't give a dam about going off base to investigate what they saw which ive been told by my mate in the USAF is incorrect.Each USAF installation has an MOD police station manned by MOD police officers who deal with everything on sovereign terratory,he says they mainly deal with snap happy plane spotters the other side off the fence but are there primarily for security threats around the base that the US have no power with.Now this begs the big question that the MOD police must have been informed that night at Rendlesham and why didnt THEY investigate the sighting?the only british police mentioned are the local bobbies but the MOD police must have been involved.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
MOD Police, radio station
by Observer » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:38 am
Hi all
Some very interesting points raised re the radio protocol, the station mentioned is in a farmers field at the bottom of Bell lane where it meets Foxhall road, which is in the village of Kesgrave.
The station is now a bunch of derelict buildings but still visible. I can remember it when it was active and there used to be an MOD Policeman on the gate.
Interesting point re MOD Police and the incident, perhaps we could take this futher.
I often had a chat and swapped fags through the fence, near East Gate with the USAF security Police when i went shooting in Rendlesham forest, and i can never remember seeing an MOD copper?
I know the Oyster at Butley, but its a little far for me living in London unless i was on holiday in the area. With other commitments, i would prefer a meeting nearer home.
Observer
Some very interesting points raised re the radio protocol, the station mentioned is in a farmers field at the bottom of Bell lane where it meets Foxhall road, which is in the village of Kesgrave.
The station is now a bunch of derelict buildings but still visible. I can remember it when it was active and there used to be an MOD Policeman on the gate.
Interesting point re MOD Police and the incident, perhaps we could take this futher.
I often had a chat and swapped fags through the fence, near East Gate with the USAF security Police when i went shooting in Rendlesham forest, and i can never remember seeing an MOD copper?
I know the Oyster at Butley, but its a little far for me living in London unless i was on holiday in the area. With other commitments, i would prefer a meeting nearer home.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by redsocks » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:56 pm
The only reference I can find to the MOD police is in Brunis book which states that there was no involvment by them.This beggars belief as my mate said that the USAF security on patrol have a radio channel purely for contacting the MOD police and must contact them to respond to a security threat outside the perimiter fence.If not on the first night surely with all the activity of the second night there would have been MOD police presance.I am suprised a retired MOD PO hasnt come forward on this but as nobody wants to come forward its not entirely suprising is it 
.
Redsocks
.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
MOD Police
by Observer » Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:40 pm
Hi redsocks
This may not be so strange as you think, because i think the USAF were deliberately keeping the Brits out of the picture for whatever reason. For example, the local civilian Police who turned up were not initially allowed any where near the alleged landing sites, yet how can the USAF have that kind of authority off base and over the local Police and sovereign British territory. They 'pulled' rank for a serious reason only known to them.
Halt's memo to the MOD is a bit fishy, not so much in what he said but who received it.
USAF protocol would insist on a memo first to USAF HQ Europe then i suggest to the MOD [in fact i suspect that it would be protocol for USAF HQ to inform the MOD, not a local Lt Col] and the RAF on site liaision officer. None but the MOD are mentioned as recipients.
However, i do know that the RAF liaison officer Squad Ldr Moreland helped Halt in his memo compilation and i think he knows a lot more about this incident?
Now bearing in mind that the memo was not sent to the MOD until nearly two weeks after the event could point to the fact that a memo [of a different nature] was sent to USAF HQ, but they asked Halt to write a very inoffensive and non controversial memo [which it was]
to the MOD to take the heat off? There also is no mention of any liaison after the incident between the local Police and the USAF. Strange. Unless of course you know different.
Observer
This may not be so strange as you think, because i think the USAF were deliberately keeping the Brits out of the picture for whatever reason. For example, the local civilian Police who turned up were not initially allowed any where near the alleged landing sites, yet how can the USAF have that kind of authority off base and over the local Police and sovereign British territory. They 'pulled' rank for a serious reason only known to them.
Halt's memo to the MOD is a bit fishy, not so much in what he said but who received it.
USAF protocol would insist on a memo first to USAF HQ Europe then i suggest to the MOD [in fact i suspect that it would be protocol for USAF HQ to inform the MOD, not a local Lt Col] and the RAF on site liaision officer. None but the MOD are mentioned as recipients.
However, i do know that the RAF liaison officer Squad Ldr Moreland helped Halt in his memo compilation and i think he knows a lot more about this incident?
Now bearing in mind that the memo was not sent to the MOD until nearly two weeks after the event could point to the fact that a memo [of a different nature] was sent to USAF HQ, but they asked Halt to write a very inoffensive and non controversial memo [which it was]
to the MOD to take the heat off? There also is no mention of any liaison after the incident between the local Police and the USAF. Strange. Unless of course you know different.
Observer
- Observer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Woodbridge Suffolk, now London.
by puddlepirate » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:25 pm
Hi All
Back in 1980 there was no such thing as 'flash over-ride' for messages handled manually or transmitted via Radio Automatic TeleType (RATT), not in UK military comms at least -although it might have been used for automated transmissions in X.400 packet switching systems (PSS). As the US was usually more advanced in the use of comms technology than the UK, PSS might have been used more widely within the US military but even then I suspect 'flash over-ride' was something used by the systems engineers rather than comms operators. I worked with US comms staff during several NATO exercises both at home and abroad and never once heard 'flash over-ride' mentioned.
'Flash' was the highest precedence. Also, precedence was determined by the importance of the info contained in the signal message, not the volume of traffic. Further still, comms operators did not determine the precedence of a signal, that was done by others. If a particularly high volume of traffic threatened to cause transmission delays then what was known as a 'minimize' could be imposed. this would restrict all telephone and signal message traffic not related to the situation in hand. However there was a 'notwithstanding minimize' designator and messages stamped with this could be released during the minimize, irrespective of the fact they did not relate to the situation in hand.
Telephones were used for whole host of applications, as in business, i.e. between departments for the usual day to day stuff and by comms staff etc etc.. Generally speaking precedences weren't formally assigned to telephone calls but a call received on a designated point to point private wire would be prioritised by the simple virtue of who was at each end.
Because flash messages had to be receipted for immediately and individually, flash was always used with caution with the text of such messages kept very short in order to comply with the handling time contstraint. Therefore, whilst there might have been an increase in signal message traffic, it is most unlikey this traffic would consist solely of flash messages. As for an increase in telephone traffic, in 1987 I was working for BT in a central London exchange (Lower Holloway). In those days it was a Strowger exchange with mechanical switches. On the morning after the hurricane that hit southern / eastern England in the November of that year, the exchange was going crazy with the volume of calls. The noise was incredble but the calls were mostly from people calling other people to say they were safe, to find out if they were OK, giving details of damage - all routine stuff. Private wires ran through the exchange but these were point to point so not switched, just hard wired thus it was not possible to easily measure the volume of traffic on such ccts. The Defence Communications Network (DCN) was a separate entitity to the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) but worked on a similar principle. Engineers and operators on the DCN would notice an increase in dialled extension to extension traffic but as it has already been stated that most personnel at both bases were on Christmas leave or whatever, then if such an increase occured, staff must have been recalled or they would not have been at their desks to make the calls....and nowhere has it been suggested that staff were recalled - so who was responsible for the increased number of calls?
And don't forget - for important military circuits and in order to ensure that traffic peaks and troughs could not be observed by an enemy, 'white noise' would be transmitted during quiet periods.
Re meeting up: Butley could be difficult to get to for some and could involve a lengthy journey for just a couple of hours. London might not be popular with everyone but it is easy to get to/from for most.
Back in 1980 there was no such thing as 'flash over-ride' for messages handled manually or transmitted via Radio Automatic TeleType (RATT), not in UK military comms at least -although it might have been used for automated transmissions in X.400 packet switching systems (PSS). As the US was usually more advanced in the use of comms technology than the UK, PSS might have been used more widely within the US military but even then I suspect 'flash over-ride' was something used by the systems engineers rather than comms operators. I worked with US comms staff during several NATO exercises both at home and abroad and never once heard 'flash over-ride' mentioned.
'Flash' was the highest precedence. Also, precedence was determined by the importance of the info contained in the signal message, not the volume of traffic. Further still, comms operators did not determine the precedence of a signal, that was done by others. If a particularly high volume of traffic threatened to cause transmission delays then what was known as a 'minimize' could be imposed. this would restrict all telephone and signal message traffic not related to the situation in hand. However there was a 'notwithstanding minimize' designator and messages stamped with this could be released during the minimize, irrespective of the fact they did not relate to the situation in hand.
Telephones were used for whole host of applications, as in business, i.e. between departments for the usual day to day stuff and by comms staff etc etc.. Generally speaking precedences weren't formally assigned to telephone calls but a call received on a designated point to point private wire would be prioritised by the simple virtue of who was at each end.
Because flash messages had to be receipted for immediately and individually, flash was always used with caution with the text of such messages kept very short in order to comply with the handling time contstraint. Therefore, whilst there might have been an increase in signal message traffic, it is most unlikey this traffic would consist solely of flash messages. As for an increase in telephone traffic, in 1987 I was working for BT in a central London exchange (Lower Holloway). In those days it was a Strowger exchange with mechanical switches. On the morning after the hurricane that hit southern / eastern England in the November of that year, the exchange was going crazy with the volume of calls. The noise was incredble but the calls were mostly from people calling other people to say they were safe, to find out if they were OK, giving details of damage - all routine stuff. Private wires ran through the exchange but these were point to point so not switched, just hard wired thus it was not possible to easily measure the volume of traffic on such ccts. The Defence Communications Network (DCN) was a separate entitity to the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) but worked on a similar principle. Engineers and operators on the DCN would notice an increase in dialled extension to extension traffic but as it has already been stated that most personnel at both bases were on Christmas leave or whatever, then if such an increase occured, staff must have been recalled or they would not have been at their desks to make the calls....and nowhere has it been suggested that staff were recalled - so who was responsible for the increased number of calls?
And don't forget - for important military circuits and in order to ensure that traffic peaks and troughs could not be observed by an enemy, 'white noise' would be transmitted during quiet periods.
Re meeting up: Butley could be difficult to get to for some and could involve a lengthy journey for just a couple of hours. London might not be popular with everyone but it is easy to get to/from for most.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
by redsocks » Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:10 am
Hi All,
This is what whitehall told Ian Ridpath of the local police involvment.
"They said that all they could see was the lighthouse[at Orfordness].They were called out at 10.30am on Dec 26th to examine the reported landing marks.There seems little doubt that the date of Dec 27th given in Col Halts letter is wrong.This also casts doubt on the second date he gives for later events"
Ripath then went on to ask for the MOD files on the case to be released,Pam Titchmarsh of DS8 at Whitehall wrote to Moreland and was given this reply that was forwarded to Ridpath.
"Dear Pam,
Thank you for your letter concerning unexplained lights seen at Woodbridge During December 1980.The incident is now almost 3 years old and nobody here remembers it clearly.All we have is Lt Col Halts letter dated 13 jan 1981 .A study of this letter shows that the first sighting was at 0300 hrs on 27 dec 80 and that the second sighting was on the night of 29 dec 80.I have no knowledge of any local constabulary involvment.Your sincerely Don Moreland Squadron Leader RAF.
This comfirms The MOD's said involvment or lack of interest in the case.Strange that Moreland says that he has no knowledge of Local police involvement, so the airman only contacted the local bobbies but not the MOD presence on the base??,seems like the MOD really werent interested at all.I believe the airmen really thought they were dealing with something usual at the time but then realised what it was and the whole episode was blown out of preportion by Halt and the airman years later when the tale became base folklaw.
Redsocks
This is what whitehall told Ian Ridpath of the local police involvment.
"They said that all they could see was the lighthouse[at Orfordness].They were called out at 10.30am on Dec 26th to examine the reported landing marks.There seems little doubt that the date of Dec 27th given in Col Halts letter is wrong.This also casts doubt on the second date he gives for later events"
Ripath then went on to ask for the MOD files on the case to be released,Pam Titchmarsh of DS8 at Whitehall wrote to Moreland and was given this reply that was forwarded to Ridpath.
"Dear Pam,
Thank you for your letter concerning unexplained lights seen at Woodbridge During December 1980.The incident is now almost 3 years old and nobody here remembers it clearly.All we have is Lt Col Halts letter dated 13 jan 1981 .A study of this letter shows that the first sighting was at 0300 hrs on 27 dec 80 and that the second sighting was on the night of 29 dec 80.I have no knowledge of any local constabulary involvment.Your sincerely Don Moreland Squadron Leader RAF.
This comfirms The MOD's said involvment or lack of interest in the case.Strange that Moreland says that he has no knowledge of Local police involvement, so the airman only contacted the local bobbies but not the MOD presence on the base??,seems like the MOD really werent interested at all.I believe the airmen really thought they were dealing with something usual at the time but then realised what it was and the whole episode was blown out of preportion by Halt and the airman years later when the tale became base folklaw.
Redsocks
- redsocks
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:27 am
by puddlepirate » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:04 pm
Hi All
The fact (assuming it is fact) that the US Security Police didn't follow what one would assume to be standard/required procedure and contact MoD police by the designated comms channel seems odd. Given there was a MoD post on base (on both bases in fact), then if there was a genuine flap, with SP from Woodbridge driving into the forest to be joined by a convoy of additional personnel coming up from Bentwaters, then surely the MoD police on duty would have to have been involved. Wouldn't they themselves have been reprimanded for allowing US military personnel off base in such numbers without demanding to know what was going on? If the US military had simply refused to tell MoD police, then almost certainly the OIC MoD Police at the twin bases would have been made an official complaint via the usual channels.
None of this adds up or makes any logical sense. Both US and UK military - even more so with the US military - thrive on procedure. The right chit, the right ID, the right authority, the right orders. Anyone who has ever come into contact with the US military, even at a very low level, will have experienced that and probably have been asked questions such as 'Do you have orders to go with that?. An example: In Hong Kong in late Feb/early March 1986, the USS Engadine parks up in the harbour. The only US ship in at that time. In the foyer of the China Fleet Club is a US matelot in rig. Several of us from the RN comcen at HMS Tamar are on a run ashore and making our way up to the Kelly Bar for a beer. As we pass him we ask 'Hi mate, you off the Engadine then?' To which the US sailor replies 'Can't tell you, man. Orders'. If it stated in US standing orders that MoD police must be informed should US security personnel have a need to deal with a situation off base, then you can bet your bottom dollar that is exactly what they would have done before proceeding. The fact that they [apparently] did not is totally against the norm and peculiar to say the least.
The fact (assuming it is fact) that the US Security Police didn't follow what one would assume to be standard/required procedure and contact MoD police by the designated comms channel seems odd. Given there was a MoD post on base (on both bases in fact), then if there was a genuine flap, with SP from Woodbridge driving into the forest to be joined by a convoy of additional personnel coming up from Bentwaters, then surely the MoD police on duty would have to have been involved. Wouldn't they themselves have been reprimanded for allowing US military personnel off base in such numbers without demanding to know what was going on? If the US military had simply refused to tell MoD police, then almost certainly the OIC MoD Police at the twin bases would have been made an official complaint via the usual channels.
None of this adds up or makes any logical sense. Both US and UK military - even more so with the US military - thrive on procedure. The right chit, the right ID, the right authority, the right orders. Anyone who has ever come into contact with the US military, even at a very low level, will have experienced that and probably have been asked questions such as 'Do you have orders to go with that?. An example: In Hong Kong in late Feb/early March 1986, the USS Engadine parks up in the harbour. The only US ship in at that time. In the foyer of the China Fleet Club is a US matelot in rig. Several of us from the RN comcen at HMS Tamar are on a run ashore and making our way up to the Kelly Bar for a beer. As we pass him we ask 'Hi mate, you off the Engadine then?' To which the US sailor replies 'Can't tell you, man. Orders'. If it stated in US standing orders that MoD police must be informed should US security personnel have a need to deal with a situation off base, then you can bet your bottom dollar that is exactly what they would have done before proceeding. The fact that they [apparently] did not is totally against the norm and peculiar to say the least.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (Winston Churchill)...causa latet, vis est notissima
- puddlepirate
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:47 am
- Location: UK
Return to The Rendlesham forest incident
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest