The landing site [later general discussion]

[Wolf]

The 81st RRS (Radio Research Squadron) was administered by the 81st TFW. They actually fell under the USAF Security Service who reported directly to the NSA.

V/R

Wolf

[Andy]

Andy
I believe you, but as you are aware there is a lot of myth attached to this incident which sadly is growing by the day. Its up to us to seperate the myth from fact. Easier said than done.

I am almost convinced that the 'little' red light that Halt first mentioned on his tape was a USAF issued torch fitted with a red filter over the lens. This was being Shone towards Halt probably from a distance of about 20/30 metres. If you saw this in a very dark forest at night amongst the trees you would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation from your standpoint. Halt also mentioned that the light had a sort of eye in the centre. If you focus these torches to a wider angle beam which you could on those torches, you get a dead spot in the middle. The red lense would emphasise this and i think this is what Halt saw.

My other guess is that the person holding the torch was 'guarding' some thing. From information i got from an ex USAF friend, when the red filter was fitted and the torch shone at you, it meant stop, do not approach.

The only man made device to my knowledge that could hover over those woods for that length of time and make little noise, perhaps a humming noise from its electric motors and have different coloured NAV lights on it is an airship, and they were around in those days.
Did the airship winch said object up out of the forest as witnessed by Halt and others?
Was this the large object seen over the forest with lights by the duty crew in the Bentwaters control tower?

Far fetched i know but feasable.
Obs

A good theory, but think about it Observer. If there were such things as USAF issue torches with red filters, meaning 'do not approach'.... do you not think Halt, (and considering his rank, he was no half-wit), would not have known about them? or recognise the fact it is a torch being shone at you? I've been in Rendlesham when it it pitch dark, as i'm sure you have, and if someone shone a torch at me, i tend to think i would know what it was? I might be wrong, but i'm going to do a late night walk with a friend and a red lensed torch in the forest to see what effect it gives and whether i would be fooled. As it stands i don't think i would be, but i shall keep an open mind.

[robert]

Agree completely Obs. You have to kick the ball about to get anywhere at all. I quite understand.

Wolf,
Do you know of the continuation of the Cobra Mist or Cold Witness over at RAF Brawdy, I think in Pembrokeshire. Apparently it was still ongoing in 1984 and quite possibly still being talked about in 1990.
Source.
Hansard, Parlimentary Questions, Alan Carke, Defence Secretary.

[Wolf]

COLD was normally a code word for MAC projects and not SIGNIT

Wolf

[Andy]

I don't have much time on the computer but I have to say your wrong about seveal things. First of all Halt new about the first night he read the report on the mourning of the 26th. And trust me when I tell you the red light was not a flashlight plus also remember Halt stated one object broke into 3 lights and then disapeared. Guys it was not the lighthouse or a guy with a flashlight. Plus I understand the part of things slowing down when you are frighten I had that happen to me when I almost got run over by a car but what ever we got close to did this. It happened to me on both nights. MSgt ball was the one who first said it looked like a grid search but unless we had some kind of blue tranparent Helicopter it was not a Helo. I have been around Helo and this was not a Helo. Also the shift commander LT England would have been the one to give permission.

Of course he would have known about the first night's incident. Cold war etc, and he didn't know what had gone on in the days previous pertaining to his military base(s)??? He would have been a fool not to, which he is not, and i wouldn't believe it for one moment, or the Military's apparent lack of poor communication?

[robert]

Andy
I believe you, but as you are aware there is a lot of myth attached to this incident which sadly is growing by the day. Its up to us to seperate the myth from fact. Easier said than done.

I am almost convinced that the 'little' red light that Halt first mentioned on his tape was a USAF issued torch fitted with a red filter over the lens. This was being Shone towards Halt probably from a distance of about 20/30 metres. If you saw this in a very dark forest at night amongst the trees you would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation from your standpoint. Halt also mentioned that the light had a sort of eye in the centre. If you focus these torches to a wider angle beam which you could on those torches, you get a dead spot in the middle. The red lense would emphasise this and i think this is what Halt saw.

My other guess is that the person holding the torch was 'guarding' some thing. From information i got from an ex USAF friend, when the red filter was fitted and the torch shone at you, it meant stop, do not approach.

The only man made device to my knowledge that could hover over those woods for that length of time and make little noise, perhaps a humming noise from its electric motors and have different coloured NAV lights on it is an airship, and they were around in those days.
Did the airship winch said object up out of the forest as witnessed by Halt and others?
Was this the large object seen over the forest with lights by the duty crew in the Bentwaters control tower?

Far fetched i know but feasable.
Obs

A good theory, but think about it Observer. If there were such things as USAF issue torches with red filters, meaning 'do not approach'.... do you not think Halt, (and considering his rank, he was no half-wit), would not have known about them? or recognise the fact it is a torch being shone at you? I've been in Rendlesham when it it pitch dark, as i'm sure you have, and if someone shone a torch at me, i tend to think i would know what it was? I might be wrong, but i'm going to do a late night walk with a friend and a red lensed torch in the forest to see what effect it gives and whether i would be fooled. As it stands i don't think i would be, but i shall keep an open mind.

Andy

Let us have some idea of the strength of that light house light if you get chance as well.
You can compare the intensity to a candle or a torch or a match but don't burn the Forest down!

Cheers
Robert

[Andy]

I'm right with Obs on this one......

Night 1. Operation Spick and Span, i.e. clean-up starts
Night 2. Halt inadvertently stumbles into 'Spick 'n Span'
Night 3. Who knows what.....area secured, guards posted, road block....

Incidentally, who ordered everyone into the forest? Halt didn't - he was called out of a social function and when he arrived with his squad, many personnel were already there, so who did? Who ordered Lt Englund and everyone else to go get lightalls and meet up in the forest? And why? Odd lights do not merit anything between 40 to 70 personnel with lightalls running around a foreign forest in the dead of night - and you don't go looking for odd lights with floodlights....and why the geiger counter? Why would you need that if you are looking for odd lights? Not something you keep in your pocket, surely? And given Halt and co covered a good couple of miles over unknown territory in the dark, how did they find their way back? There is no mention of maps (why would they have taken maps with them anyway) so unless the forest was lit up like a funfair and was an easily seen point of reference, how would they know where they were? It's quite hard to find your way in the dark...bad enough if you are familar with the area.

Apart from the previous two dismissive posts i made, this one though i COULD buy into, apart from the Halt inadvertently stumbling into it scenario. That bit doesn't wash with me.

[Andy]

Andy
I believe you, but as you are aware there is a lot of myth attached to this incident which sadly is growing by the day. Its up to us to seperate the myth from fact. Easier said than done.

I am almost convinced that the 'little' red light that Halt first mentioned on his tape was a USAF issued torch fitted with a red filter over the lens. This was being Shone towards Halt probably from a distance of about 20/30 metres. If you saw this in a very dark forest at night amongst the trees you would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation from your standpoint. Halt also mentioned that the light had a sort of eye in the centre. If you focus these torches to a wider angle beam which you could on those torches, you get a dead spot in the middle. The red lense would emphasise this and i think this is what Halt saw.

My other guess is that the person holding the torch was 'guarding' some thing. From information i got from an ex USAF friend, when the red filter was fitted and the torch shone at you, it meant stop, do not approach.

The only man made device to my knowledge that could hover over those woods for that length of time and make little noise, perhaps a humming noise from its electric motors and have different coloured NAV lights on it is an airship, and they were around in those days.
Did the airship winch said object up out of the forest as witnessed by Halt and others?
Was this the large object seen over the forest with lights by the duty crew in the Bentwaters control tower?

Far fetched i know but feasable.
Obs

A good theory, but think about it Observer. If there were such things as USAF issue torches with red filters, meaning 'do not approach'.... do you not think Halt, (and considering his rank, he was no half-wit), would not have known about them? or recognise the fact it is a torch being shone at you? I've been in Rendlesham when it it pitch dark, as i'm sure you have, and if someone shone a torch at me, i tend to think i would know what it was? I might be wrong, but i'm going to do a late night walk with a friend and a red lensed torch in the forest to see what effect it gives and whether i would be fooled. As it stands i don't think i would be, but i shall keep an open mind.

Andy

Let us have some idea of the strength of that light house light if you get chance as well.
You can compare the intensity to a candle or a torch or a match but don't burn the Forest down!

Cheers
Robert

I could tell you now Robert, because i have seen it so many times. Trust me, if you held a struck match up in front of your face whilst viewing the lighthouse flash in the background, the match flare would probably be brighter.... honest.

[puddlepirate]

Wolf

Interesting.....RCA ran Orfordness and RAF Fylingdales. Radar emissions at Fylingdales are known to affect motor vehicles using the road that passes close to the base. Fact. Google 'fylingdales' and you will find a stack of info about that.

NSA involved- RCA run Orfordness - RCA run Fylingdales - 81st RRS (what were they up to I wonder, did they employ civvy techs? Where were their labs?) - 81st TFW - Woodbridge - Orfordness - Bawdsey - EM emmissions - personnel experiencing weird sensastions - motor vehicles affected by EM emmissions - radar can trigger phosporescence at sea - reports of phosphorescence at Orfordness - experimenatal radars at Orfordness and Bawdsey - something comes down in the forest (landed or otherwise) - areas of forest secured - a/c operating out of Lakenheath with known ability to carry tactical nukes - nukes stored at Bentwaters - USAF/NSA officers visit RAF Watton to see radar tapes - memos to the RAF liaison officer sent two weeks after the RFI - 40+ USAF personnel in forest with lightalls - C5 takes something away - voice tapes sent to Germany - USAF personnel interrogated - Poland about to kick off - A10's sent to forward bases???? Call me old fashioned but something seems to be taking shape here and it doesn't look like a lighthouse......and by issuing a D notice, MoD/HMG make sure nothing is published (no worries about it causing alarm....nobody would know about the D notice other than the editors and they would be left in no doubt about what would happen if they let on - don't forget us Brits are not nice people when it comes to serious defence of the realm, not nice at all. In fact, if needs be we can make Atilla the Hun look like a peace loving social worker......

[Andy]

[quote="puddlepirate"]Wolf

Interesting.....RCA ran Orfordness and RAF Fylingdales. Radar emissions at Fylingdales are known to affect motor vehicles using the road that passes close to the base. Fact. Google 'fylingdales' and you will find a stack of info about that.

NSA involved- RCA run Orfordness - RCA run Fylingdales - 81st RRS (what were they up to I wonder, did they employ civvy techs? Where were their labs?) - 81st TFW - Woodbridge - Orfordness - Bawdsey - EM emmissions - personnel experiencing weird sensastions - motor vehicles affected by EM emmissions - radar can trigger phosporescence at sea - reports of phosphorescence at Orfordness - experimenatal radars at Orfordness and Bawdsey - something comes down in the forest (landed or otherwise) - areas of forest secured - a/c operating out of Lakenheath with known ability to carry tactical nukes - nukes stored at Bentwaters - USAF/NSA officers visit RAF Watton to see radar tapes - memos to the RAF liaison officer sent two weeks after the RFI - 40+ USAF personnel in forest with lightalls - C5 takes something away - voice tapes sent to Germany - USAF personnel interrogated - Poland about to kick off - A10's sent to forward bases???? Call me old fashioned but something seems to be taking shape here and it doesn't look like a lighthouse......and by issuing a D notice, MoD/HMG make sure nothing is published (no worries about it causing alarm....nobody would know about the D notice other than the editors and they would be left in no doubt about what would happen if they let on - don't forget us Brits are not nice people when it comes to serious defence of the realm, not nice at all. In fact, if needs be we can make Atilla the Hun look like a peace loving social worker......[/quote

PP, that really is one of the most feasible, and what i would consider as, one of the best potential explanations to date, and one i could easily buy as a rational explanation for all this.

And i'm not unconvinced radar/experiments etc are not still going on, even to date, despite what we may be told. I've queried 'lay-lines' etc for that part of the forest i have often mentioned where strange phenomenon seem to occur on occasion ie compasses, phones, dogs etc as a possible explanation, but it doesn't happen consistently, so therefore not convinced of the lay line theory. Continued experiments in the area i could believe though. Since when have we believed anything our illustrious goverment et al have ever told us?

And believe me seeing is believing. Seeing a compass suddenly acting strangely and unable to give an accurate direction is weird, but to see dogs you know very well suddenly acting totally out of character, and you have no control over or the usual response from them, is nothing short of weird. And a change in their own very sensitive magnetic field is a very strong probability for this. The question is though, what is it within the forest that on occasion seems to alter their natural magnetic field so that they react like the do, and so strongly?

[Andy]

I must ask another seemingly senseless question of JB though (and i think i know the answer, but may be wrong)

How many times had you previously guarded the East Gate before suddenly noticing 'lights' in the trees? I'm not looking for an exact figure here, just a rough questimate?

[Robert McLean]

[/quote]It was Chuck de Caro of CNN who first played the Halt tape recording over film of the lighthouse flashing, which demonstrated that the words “there it is again” and “there it is” matched the flash rate exactly.[/quote]

The five second gap on the tape where Lt. Englund says these words also matches the flash pattern of Shipwash lightship, which was three flashes separate by a pair of 2.5 second gaps, then a 15 second gap, with the pattern repeating on a 20 second cycle. So the first and third flashes were 5 seconds apart, matching the Orfordness lighthouse regular 5 second pattern.

Ian says "Shipwash is a non-starter for the flashing UFO because its beam could not be seen directly from the forest edge. The only flashing light which fits that bill is Orfordness." This is true if Halt's landing site was anywhere in the woods generally east of the farmer's house at Capel Green, because a direct line of sight to Shipwash was obscured by the trees of Oak Wood, and even if flashes of scattered light might have been visible in the sky, these would have become dimmer as they walked down into the water meadows.

However, in the fields on the opposite, south side of Oak Wood, both the Orfordness lighthouse and Shipwash light would have been visible over a large area, and at the same time. You can still see the Orforndess lighthouse there today, as well as the faint marker buoy light which replaced the lightship in 1993.

In Halt's interviews he is clear that he saw the lighthouse (in reality, Shipwash lightship) at the same time as the unidentified light, and that the "lighthouse" (Shipwash) was to the right of the unidentified light (Orfordness lighthouse). Because Shipwash could not have been seen from the traditional landing site, this leads to a significant discrepancy with what Halt has said he saw because he claims he saw both the object (presumably Orfordness lighthouse) and the lighthouse (presumably Shipwash lightship) at the same time:

From a tape sent by Col Halt to American Researcher Don Worley, in the fall of 1987, transcribed by Antonio Huneeus: "I am familiar with the lighthouse. The lighthouse was approximately 20 to 30 degrees off to the right of where we saw the object in the sky, just above the ground, I should say. It definitely was not the lighthouse."

In the interview with Salley Rayl he says: "First, the lighthouse was visible the whole time. It was readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right. If you were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the farmer's house directly in front of us. The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees off to the right . . ."

Now I do not believe for one minute that he was never confused by the "lighthouse", but by the time he got to Burrow Hill and "made sighting again" of the Shipwash light he must have realised that this light, at least, was probably man made. What he didn't see again was the strange light that had somehow "exploded" into five separate lights, i.e. the five navigation warning lights at the top of the 5 evenly spaced 100 m tall radio masts at the north end of Orfordness. In fact, there was no explosion, just the sudden disappearance of the lighthouse after whch they noticed the five lights.

The Halt tape also makes it clear that two lights were seen at the same time. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the first light they began following out of the forest was the Shipwash light, and that after a short interval they spotted off to the left the second light, which was Orfordness lighthouse. Keep in mind how stange it would seem that the two separate lights were aparently synchronised, given that there would have been a common 5 second period in the flash pattern, i.e. two of the Shipwash flashes would have had the same phase relationship with the Orfordness flashes.

Now just image the above scenario while reading the Halt tape transcript:

VOICE: There. It's yellow.
HALT: I saw a yellow tinge in it, too. Weird.
<BREAK>
HALT: It, it appears to be maybe moving a little bit this way?
VOICE: Yes.
HALT: It's, it’s brighter than it has been.
VOICE: Yellow.
HALT: It's coming this way. It is definitely coming this way.
<BREAK>
VOICE: Pieces are shooting . . .
HALT: Pieces of it are shooting off.
ENGLUND: At 11 o-clock.
HALT: There is no doubt about it. This is weird!
<BREAK>
[Using Georgina Bruni’s identification of Master Sgt. Ball (probably incorrect), to keep track of voices.]
BALL: Look to the left.
VOICE: Yeah, definitely...
BALL: Look to the left.
BALL: Two. Two lights.
HALT: (Whispering) Go ahead.
BALL: One light to the right . . .
HALT: (Whispering) Hey.
BALL: . . .and one light to the left.

All this about pieces shooting off is to do with the synchronisation of the flashes. If one flash was delayed slightly with respect to the other, then it could appear that something had shot off in the direction of the delayed flash. The "at 11 o'clock" indicates an angle of about 30 degrees to the left of the light they had initially been following, which was the Shipwash light. In fact, it was not as much as 30 degrees, but no-one ever says "at 11 and a half o'clock" which would have been a more accurate description of the angle between the lighthouse and lightship lights.

Also consider that before they went off chasing lighthouses, they could not have been anywhere with a direct unobstructed view of any lighthouse/lightship beam, because they were messing around with the gieger counter for some time before anyone noticed a flashing light, and even then they lost initially lost sight of it, before verifying that the flashing light was indeed there. Then, as they went towards the flashing light, it got brighter, which they misconstrued as the light getting closer.

Coming out of the woods into the field to the south of Oak Wood, this is just what would have happened, because a direct view of the Shipwash lightship was blocked by an initial rise in the first farmer's field, so they could only have seen indirect flashes from scattered light in the sky. At the same time, Orfordness lighthouse would have been completely blocked by Oak Wood. As they reached the high point in the field to the south of Oak Wood, the Shipwash light would have got brighter until they got a direct view of the Shipwash light about the same time as they would have seen the Orfordness light starting to come through the trees in the south east corner of Oak Wood. I have photographed this effect. Halt's party were on the left hand side of the field, and as they walked towards the farmer's house (which is on the left hand edge of the field) they continued to bear towards the left of the field, as Halt recounted to Georgina Bruni.

In following this route, the Orfordness light as viewed from the field appears to move out of Oak Wood and approach the farmer's house from the left hand side, until it comes directly in line with the farmer's house, and it is only when you are nearly at the farmer's house that it finally disappears (behind the hill at Gedgrave). This farmer's house is opposite the numeral 8 on the OS map at http://www.flickr.com/photos/28296368@N02/2641758904/ just north of Capel St Andrew.

They then crossed the road into the opposite (ploughed) field, got wet fording the stream that flows into Bushey Hole, out into another (ploughed) field, and found the long driveway that leads in the general direction of the lights they were following to the second farmhouse at Burrow Hill.

Apart from the one stream, this route is plain sailing. In contrast, the fields between Oak Wood and Butley Priory are segmented by significant drainage ditches, as can be seen on Google maps and satellite images, and would be effectively impassible at night to anyone heading towards Burrow Hill who did not know the narrow access points to each field.

All I have been doing is using the scientific method. One form of the scientific method is to 1) make observations, 2) create a theory that explains the observations, 3) extrapolate or make predictions from the new theory, and 4) verify the predictions with more observations. If the predictions do not agree with the observations, generate a new theory and repeat the process. The scientific method requires that theories be testable. If a theory cannot be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory.

1) Observations: The traditional landing site leads to numerous discrepancies with the evidence, particularly if we assume that (i) Halt was fooled by the lighthouse and/or the lightship and (ii) Halt has been essentially truthful on his tape and in his later testimony of what happened, even if there may have been some spin or convenient omissions. The discrepancies include:

- The stated compass heading, which agrees with Shipwash, but not Orfordness. It was on this basis that Steuart Campbell believed they must have followed the Shipwash beam.

- The fact that Shipwash is not visible from the traditional location, so how could Halt have seen both the lighthouse and lightship?

- The fact that the land elevation in the first field drops off so quickly that you can only see the lighthouse for the first 126 metres after which it disappears from direct view. So what spurred Burroughs et al to follow it for perhaps 2 miles until they got to a vantage point?

- The fact that no-one to my knowledge has ever seen the lights on at the back of the house at Capel Green, so why did Halt see these lights on?

- Halt says he was on the left hand side of the field, but the traditional location is in the centre of the field.

- There is no feasible route in a straight line (as recounted in the witness statements) to a vantage point where it is possible to see that the lights are from a lighthouse or lightship.

- The route after the ditch leads into water meadows, and although some fields further away are ploughed, these look to be impossible to reach owing to the network of deep drainage ditches.

- Halt's description of branches broekn off at 15 tp 20 feet suggests trees smaller than near 60 year old Corsican pines.

- Aerial photos of the forest from 1971 show no clearing near the traditional landing site which matches witness statements. There is only a uniform sea of trees.

I realise that some of these points could be debated and are open to different interpretations, but I think there is enough doubt here to justify serious consideration of a New Theory:

2) New theory: (i) the landing site could be somewhere else and (ii) Halt ended up on Burrow Hill.

3) Extrapolate or make predictions: Working backwards see if there is any feasible route from Burrow Hill back into the forest that involves a stream crossing and a first farmer's house. Find that there is indeed such a route.

4) Verify the predictions with more observations: Show that the order of events recounted by Halt and recorded on the tape match the behaviour of the lighthouse and lightship lights and the five lights on the radio masts as the new route is followed past the farmhouse and Burrow Hill. Show also that this new first farmer's house does come into line with the lighthouse beam, and that the windows when lit at night do look as if the house could be on fire - I have photos of this. Explain previously unexplained matters such as the "pieces shooting off" and "at 11 o'clock" comments on the tape.

[Robert McLean]

An SP went to see Halt [because he knew where he was] at the Officers Christmas party.
He said to Halt "It's back", Halt said "what's back"?
This undoubtedly says Halt knew nothing of the first night but when he arrived in the forest on the second night, there were already people there, so who gave them permission to go off base into the forest before Halt was even told or arrived? Halt's first observation as he and his colleagues got deeper into the forest was a small bright red light shining at him/them from the dense darkness of the forest, the rest i explained in an earlier post.
Obs

No, Halt knew first thing the same morning. From Col. Halt’s Seminar at St George’s Community College, August 1997, in his own words:

"I walked into the Desk to pick up the blotters for the previous 24 hour period. I would do this about once or twice a week. And the Desk Sergeant that morning – it was probably five-thirty or quarter to six – was Staff Sergeant “Crash” McCabe. We called him “Crash” for a very good reason. That’s why he was on the “Desk” instead of a patrol car.

And he said, uh ‘Colonel, you’re not going to believe this.’. He said ‘Burroughs and Penniston and Bustinza were out in the woods last night chasing a UFO.’

And I said ‘What?’ And we both had a chuckle. And I said ‘ Now, be more specific.’.

He said ‘ Well the Lieutenant said . . .’ (the Lieutenant being the Flight Commander for the evening, or that early morning shift) ‘. . .said, don’t put it in the blotter.’.

I said ‘Well, what happened? You got to put something in the blotter.’

He said ‘Well, I know they saw some lights. And something happened out there, and they think they saw something.’.

[Andy]

WoW... i'm genuinely impressed. There is a lot of info there and i will need to read it a few times to digest it all, but just would like to say thanks. And what an excellent contribution. In recent months i had become bored of the whole thing, but this particular thread has re-ignited the appetite, and have enjoyed reading the contributions and valuable information and ideas offered.

[Robert McLean]

I now have to fit into all of this, colleagues witness accounts ie five orange balls of light hovering over the forest, and there for some considerable time, (probably helicopters, having often seen the local police helicopter in the distance, and it appears orange), but then, what were the helicopters watching over?

We have been over this before. There was nothing flying that night. The WB tower was closed, BW was open for emergencies only. And helicopters do not hover silently for hours, fading out as the dawn comes...

Ian

So any ideas then Ian as to what it could have been? As said four or five orange lights hovering over the top of the forest for some considerable time, and moving about?

The explanation for this has been known for a long time. There are five 100 m tall radio masts at Orfordness, evenly spaced apart. These are to the north of the lighthouse, at the site where Cobra Mist was based. Although the navigation warning lights are no longer lit, the masts are still there, and can be seen in the daytime with binoculars, but otherwise you wouldn't probably notice them from as far away as Rendlesham forest. They are very tall and are visible from many locations. They are mentioned in Sky Crash with the comment (I paraphrase) that they looked decidedly unusual and with the argument that if the airmen really were running amok seeing UFO's in every man-made light, then surely these would have been prime candidates! Well, this was one of those few nuggets of information that the authors of Sky Crash got right.

Ian Ridpath has photos of the traditional landing site taken in the early 80's at night which show at least a few of the five red lights that were on top of these masts. In one interview, Halt describes the five lights as being red, but otherwise he says they are white. This is one of the things he mis-described in his Memo.

As you move around at night, stationary lights in the background appear to move relative to forground objects. Although no-one will probably ever prove it, I'm convinced the idea of a grid search was born from the apparent movement of these five evenly spaced red lights as Halt's party moved about the countryside.

[Andy]

Now i can totally understand that, and having personally been in Rendlesham in the pitch dark (and if i didn't know where i was going) could be totally disorientated, and then seeing fixed lights, yes they would appear to move around in timing with your own movements. However, what i can't get my head around is a number of credible individuals watching from a fixed point (ie an upper storey window of a hospital ward over looking Rendlesham forest, and they themselves not moving around? From there, and for some time, seeing five bright ORANGE (not red) lights hovering over the forest and not being static and moving about?

I can give the names, addresses, telephone numbers of these individuals.

[Andy]

I know the red lights you mention, and have seen them many times. However, Halt described a light beaming down over the base? If we're talking about the same red lights, they are in the Orford direction. I cannot therefore comprehend how one of them could suddenly appear over the base, near-on a mile away in the opposite direction?

[Observer]

Well folks
I'm all out of theories, so how about some one else offering up a theory for a change, but please not the light house. My gut feeling is that it was some thing very simple rather than very complicated.
Obs

[robert]

I think if you quickly review the following, anything that corresponds to a light house or distant lights of any description would seem to me to be somewhat elusive.
There is also a sketch in the second link that again corresponds to nothing that would seem to resemble a distant light or lights.

I've put in the statement at the end by Ralph Noyes with apologies to all our hardworking investigators but it is nice I'm sure you would agree, to get as many views as possible for our own perspective.

Robert


BBC link as below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3033428.stm

US Air Force Sergeant John Burroughs said: "The blue lights coming down from the sky... I still have never heard of any technology capable of doing what I saw happening."

"The original stuff we saw cannot be taken for a police car. There's no way possible."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... t/1980.htm

In addition to Col. Halt's summary, testimony was provided by the USAF patrolmen involved in the case. Law enforcement airman John Burroughs wrote an official deposition of his experience after spotting some lights while on patrol near Woodbridge's East Gate

"We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that lead into the trees where the lights were coming from and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman was screaming, also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noise and there was a lot of movement in the woods. All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field''

In a 1990 interview, John Burroughs described the object as:


"A bank of lights, differently colored lights that threw off an image of like-a-craft. I never saw anything metallic or anything hard."


Yet the most interesting part of his testimony is not the presence of the lights, but rather his sensation of an altered state of consciousness:


"Everything seemed like it was different when we were in that clearing. The sky didn't seem the same... it was like a weird feeling, like everything seemed slower than you were actually doing, and all of a sudden when the object was gone, everything was like normal again."

British author and researcher Ralph Noyes was for four years the head of Defense Secretariat 8 (DS8), retiring in 1977 with the rank of Under Secretary of State. He wrote regarding this case:


"Our worried skeptical colleagues have already had to advance an extraordinary hotch-potch of explanations: space debris, a bright meteor, a police car, drink and drugs, a lighthouse, other lights on the coast, dear old Sirius.

"Occam, you will remember, urged us to cut away unnecessary complications in our attempts to explain phenomena and to look for the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation of Halt's memorandum is that he was reporting - as precisely as wondrous events permit - what he and 'numerous individuals' encountered on December 29/30, together with such facts as he had been able to ascertain from his subordinates about the occurrences of December 26/27."

[redsocks]

Well folks
I'm all out of theories, so how about some one else offering up a theory for a change, but please not the light house. My gut feeling is that it was some thing very simple rather than very complicated.
Obs

You know Observer,

This is why I havent posted much to do with theorys over the months as we have covered every conceivable theory but one must be correct but which one??..........I reckon a local meetings in order to get a feel for the place and get some more ideas is the way to go.

Redsocks