The landing site [later general discussion]

[Observer]

Robert
A good observation and sensibly put.

I've said this before and i will say it again including puddle's comments that the evidence must always establish the theory not the other way round. Its an old Sherlock Holmes [Conan Doyle] remark and some body recently posted it. Enough said on English literature.

This forum over time has come up with at least half a dozen thoeries and ironically you could easily attach some of the evidence to each one, but in every case the evidence falls short of a theory becoming a reality. However, some theories attracted more evidence than others but i have to admit that on some of the theories we/i did not apply the Holms technique.
We should be evidence building to see if a theory can be formed from that evidence, that is the only way to move forward positively.
Yes the forum has moved on but in some instances it has been negative. This has not so much moved us backwards but more circular or back to square one if you like.
I don't have a foot in 2 camps, i have feet in many camps which means in simple terms i have an open mind to anything. Yes i have some ideas but i guess everbody does.
Obs

[Observer]

Robert
I saw an ad in a shooting magazine some time ago now where a Russian commercial company were selling the latest generation 'starlight' rifle scopes. There were several models in the range with the cheapest at around £175 going up to over £700. Ad said, as used by the Russian army. Sorry i do not have the magazine any longer, went in the re cycling bin.
Obs

[AdrianF]

Here is one for sale. http://www.fulton-armory.com/NightVision.htm

I believe that this is the type that was used?

Adrian

[puddlepirate]

I wonder why Halt and another member of his team decided to use starscopes to look at what must have been a bright light? Even if they didn't use 'scopes on a regular basis they would probably have have been trained in their use at some point in their careers and therefore would be familiar with them. I can understand the use of 'scopes to look around a dark forest but not at a bright light. At night it's usually important to maintain night vision by avoiding looking at bright lights (hence the use of red light) so I am a more than a little curious as to why they chose to use starscopes in this particular situation because it would have ruined their night vision for several minutes at least. Just another odd little incident that doesn't quite add up.

[Observer]

The starlight scopes or image intensifiers as we called them were used mostly for covert ops at night when it was dark. We were warned not to look through them at any light source, such as street lights, car lights etc as it could damage your eye sight and, there was a good chance that the optic intenisifier could 'burn' out, In other words it over loaded the system to over saturation and this could give a distorted picture.
I suspect that this is what Halt experienced but one would have thought he would know that.

The dark centre to the optical picture that Halt saw was a symptom of the intensifier being over saturated with centre burn out.
Today these units are saturation protected and also eye sight friendly in case of accidental observation of a bright light source.
Obs

[Robert McLean]

I wonder why Halt and another member of his team decided to use starscopes to look at what must have been a bright light? Even if they didn't use 'scopes on a regular basis they would probably have have been trained in their use at some point in their careers and therefore would be familiar with them.

Halt evidently was not very familiar with them because at one point on the tape he actually asks what they are called.

[Observer]

Robert
Have you ever used a 'starlight' scope [which is the American name]? In the UK they were/are known as image intensifiers. I have used them operationally.
Obs

[Robert McLean]

Robert
Have you ever used a 'starlight' scope [which is the American name]? In the UK they were/are known as image intensifiers. I have used them operationally.
Obs

No, I have never used one. I don't even know if it's legal in the UK for civilians to have one. It wouldn't be suprising if it were not - the government has already banned just about every other type of weapon.

[Robert McLean]

Back to the landing site discussion again, I have a question for John.

My understanding of events is that the next morning - after the first night's events - it was Jim Penniston who came across the marks at the landing site. I'm not sure if Penniston has ever confirmed this, but I believe this is what Halt has said (I can't find the quote right now). If anyone can correct me on this, or has more details, please let me know.

John, what is your recollection of how the landing marks were found? Was this before or after daybreak, and was it Penniston who found them?

[John Burroughs]

This is what happened. Penniston and I were told to go to the shift commanders office and after we were finished we went out to the site. There were allready people at the area where we were the night before. I dont remember who they were for sure but they were dayshift personal and I dont know how they found the area. We looked around at the damage done to the trees and and area that had the marks. Again I will not be able to tell you who found the area first or much about what was found I just took a quick look the people who were out there were involved with the British police and the area in question. If I remember right 2 of the names were Capt Vereno and Msgt Guylouis and I also beleive the ops Commander Maj Druery showed up...

[Robert McLean]

This is what happened. Penniston and I were told to go to the shift commanders office and after we were finished we went out to the site. There were allready people at the area where we were the night before. I dont remember who they were for sure but they were dayshift personal and I dont know how they found the area. We looked around at the damage done to the trees and and area that had the marks. Again I will not be able to tell you who found the area first or much about what was found I just took a quick look the people who were out there were involved with the British police and the area in question. If I remember right 2 of the names were Capt Vereno and Msgt Guylouis and I also beleive the ops Commander Maj Druery showed up...

Ray Gulyas took photographs which were published in Georgina Bruni's book. One photo shows Capt Verano and PC Cresswell inspecting the site. These photos showed marks pressed in to the pine needles in what looks to be a very shaded area within the forest. Normally, the forest floor is covered with ferns, but the marks shown in the photos were in an area where it was too dark for ferns to grow. Have you seen these photos?

Did you know TSgt James Caston - Flight Security Supervisor? He was out there that morning too, but the group he was with found a different set of triangular marks, not in the trees, but in a clearing. He never knew about landing site in the trees shown in Ray Gulyas's photos.

Were the marks you saw in the trees or the clearing?

[Observer]

Robert M
From reading all your posts concerning the landings site/s and your research into the various routes and topography of the area, i'm inclined to agree that your explanations make a lot of sense.

Without trying to sound too negative, i don't think we are ever going to establish to the nearest 10 metres where they were. Halt has not helped this quest either due to his inconsistancies over the years on where these sites were. It is even under question as to how many there were? Never the less, i think you are on the right track, no pun intended.
Obs

[puddlepirate]

I agree with Obs on this - we will never precisely identify the location of the landing site but the position suggested by Robert M is as good as we are going to get. From my point of view - not necessarily supported by others and undoubtedly to be challenged by some - what the discussion has done is to eliminate the Halt memo and the Halt tape simply because the 'odd lights' are no longer relevant to the core RFI event.

[John Burroughs]

If I remember right they were in the trees ie there were trees but there was a small area within the trees that they found the marks and damage to the trees.

[Observer]

John
Thanks for your help, would you agree that after looking at these marks on the forest floor and damage to some trees that some thing came down from above that was fairly heavy and about the size Jim Penniston described. Did this cross your mind?
Obs

[John Burroughs]

I didnot look that close at the marks or was I involved in the plaster taking. And it looked like the damage was more from somthing going up not down....

[Andy]

This is what happened. Penniston and I were told to go to the shift commanders office and after we were finished we went out to the site. There were allready people at the area where we were the night before. I dont remember who they were for sure but they were dayshift personal and I dont know how they found the area. We looked around at the damage done to the trees and and area that had the marks. Again I will not be able to tell you who found the area first or much about what was found I just took a quick look the people who were out there were involved with the British police and the area in question. If I remember right 2 of the names were Capt Vereno and Msgt Guylouis and I also beleive the ops Commander Maj Druery showed up...

'I don't know how they found the area?'

Three psychiatric nurses stood at top storey windows of the hospital they were working in, and overlooking the woodbridge airbase/Rendlesham. Five bright orange lights in the sky, hovering over the forest.

Word is bound to get around? Something really did go on in that forest:

1. My dad passing the base on a fishing trip in the days after and seeing the edge of the forest being guarded by military? Also being told ( by the guy hosting the fishing trip), that 'a UFO had landed there.' News travel fast? My father had no connection with the base, or the person who told him this information?.... however, he got the news from somewhere?, and years on here we are discussing an alleged UFO invasion at Rendlesham?

2. One of the nurses (Vie) who witnessed the orange lights, reporting colleagues venturing into the forest in the immediate days following, and obviously having heard of it from colleagues who had viewed the phenomenon, and those seeking, seeing scorch marks on their investigation?

3. A present day colleagues father who worked on base, and hearing about it. Then venturing into the forest and seeing an area fenced off, but also scorch marks on the ground 'As if something had purposefully landed, rather than crashed.' ???

[Observer]

Andy

What you say is very interesting because a close friend of mine who walked his dogs regularly in the forest told me that he walked his dogs almost every day in the forest between Christmas and New Year and he saw nothing with the exception of other ramblers/dog walkers. I guess there is a chance that he never walked near the alleged landing site/s but i questioned him recently and his route was more or less what the UFO trail is today, he said his round trip was a couple of miles and his 2 boarder Collies would often run off chasing rabbits. He also said that he never saw any unusual behaviour in his dogs, yet some body else who posted on this forum a long time ago said his/her dogs did show signs of unusual behaviour.

Rendlesham Forest is British sovereign territory and the USAF or any other foreign national body would have no jurisdiction or authority to act in an official way on that territory unless it was to help by request British authorities, IE the local plod.

I don't doubt for one moment what your friends/colleagues saw IE lights and even scorch marks but why was the forest so normal during the day and a height of activity with a light show at night?

If i was the security chief on that base i would have phoned the British Police immediately on night 1 as it was occurring off base on British soil but too close for comfort. Surely this would have been a standard procedure. Having been in the Police myself, we were lectured and trained on these unusual events usually CND activity near military bases and had plans and strategies to liaise with the military and act swiftly to contain any potential escalation.

Obs

[puddlepirate]

There would be a protocol for informing UK authorities but such protocol might not necessarily have included the police, it could have been restricted to military and/or specialist units. There were probably several protocols, each depending upon the cause/severity of the occurence. As the incident, whatever the incident was, occured on UK soil unless the USAF was granted permission to extend their security remit, they would have no jurisdiction beyond the perimeter of the bases. Remember it is UK authorities that deal with peace camps and similar demos outside the perimeter of USAF bases, not USAF SP/LE. Bentwaters/Woodbridge would have been no different so for USAF personnel to proceed off base with lightalls, transport etc etc would have required authorisation. Thus the applicable protocol must have been invoked. Further to that, whatever the incident was, it must have required the particular expertise of the USAF or it would have been dealt with by UK forces/services. This tends to rule out a simple demo, parties in the woods or pranks. These would be relatively low level occurences to be dealt with by the local constabulary.

Even today, demos and events outside the wire, even at UK military bases (e.g. HM Dockyard, Clyde or PJHQ Northwood) are dealt with by the police but once intruders cross the wire and gain access to the base, security falls to those guarding the base be they MoD Guards, the Royal Marines or other sentries/security personnel. And make no mistake, make an unauthorised entry to some sensitive areas and the intruder is liable to be shot.

Therefore, for the USAF to proceed off base with lightalls, senior officers, transport and the rest there had to be something very serious going on. This just could not have been an investigation into odd lights. And given the US forces proclivity for almost paranoid security measures, if whatever was going on in the forest required that level of attention, the bases would have gone to full alert. The fact that they did not suggests that the USAF knew what they were looking for.

[Observer]

Exactly

Obs