Why us?

[Ignis Fatuus]

[bignos]

the blinking eye / lighthouse is good if you possess a bionic eye and dont realise that you are zoomed in at the time

[Vortex]

Guys believe what ever you want. You should not be driven by what I believe or what others think. Here is a interesting piece at least he went out there and is truley trying to put this all together. http://www.chilling-tales.com/page59.html I have to go into town my limo is waiting Halt Penniston and I have work to do..

John,

I've always stated that I believe you encountered something beyond the realm of conventional explanation back in December 1980 and I'm certainly not one of the doubters who thinks you've made all this up for money, fame etc. (no way). You've always been consistent with your recollection of events, descriptions etc. and I think this makes your testimony highly credible.

I've visited Rendlesham Forest many times over the last few years (in fact, I'm heading back there for a few days camping in August and will be sure to visit the 'finger of trees' and the area that you and Jim identified on your visit last December) and have tried to come up with my own theories as to what could have happened. To be honest though, I always seem to go full circle and just come back to square one, based on the data - I think you encountered a UFO! As to the nature of that UFO though, you're far better qualified to say than me or anybody else, as you were there and we were not.

I'm just an average guy with an interest in the UFO phenomena in general and Rendlesham Forest in particular. I genuinely hope that yourself and the other witnesses get a conclusive answer to this mystery one day, but short of an official admission of what you encountered on those nights in December 1980 (i.e. from the US or UK governments), I can't see this being forthcoming...

Cheers

Steve (Vortex)

[Ignis Fatuus]

the blinking eye / lighthouse is good if you possess a bionic eye and dont realise that you are zoomed in at the time

Something bionic....like a starscope or power lens?

[Observer]

Just a thought, but I suspect that some of the light 'displays' phenonema seen in and around the forest as described by one or two witnesses could have been the result of looking at various light sources through a star scope.
If the light source is very bright, the image will burn out causing all sorts of funny effects such as 'dripping molten metal' phenonema. Worth a look, no pun intended.
Obs

[Ignis Fatuus]

Col Ted Conrad
Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground. This episode ended in the early morning hours of [28 December 1980]
http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/secret-files-4/.

[bignos]

the blinking eye / lighthouse is good if you possess a bionic eye and dont realise that you are zoomed in at the time

Something bionic....like a starscope or power lens?

No, not really, have you seen the lighthouse from the field? or the forest? even with a powerful lens (used for aircraft photography, i cant remember the size) it didnt look like that! it was still considerably smaller. Plus a starscope (depending on the model) is usually only a 1:1 ratio isnt it? - i see what you are saying though....

[David Bryant]

The biggest myth about Rendlesham (which can be dispelled by even a brief visit) is that the lighthouse can under any circumstances be interpreted as the object seen by the various witnesses. Let's just establish my credentials for this point of view:

1) I've been visitng Rendlesham forest / Tunstall Forest since 1978
2) I have two starscopes, one of which has a 4x optical zoom
3) I have explored the forest in all seasons / all weather conditions and at all times of night and day.

The lighthouse NOW (and THEN) appears as a tiny speck of flashing reddish light: through the starscopes from the forest edge at Capel Green it was a bright flashing green light. On a clear day, if you walk twenty yards south of the picnic table, you need binoculars to see the (now unilluminated) tower. It looks nothing like the photo posted everywhere by IR, which must either have been taken with a 500mm lens or (most likely, IMHO) have been photographed from the far side of the field to the east of Green Farm.
If you don't believe me, simply GO AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF!

[Vortex]

The biggest myth about Rendlesham (which can be dispelled by even a brief visit) is that the lighthouse can under any circumstances be interpreted as the object seen by the various witnesses.

Agreed. As you say, for anybody who's actually visited Rendlesham Forest, this really is a ludicrous theory...

[John Burroughs]

Guys believe what ever you want. You should not be driven by what I believe or what others think. Here is a interesting piece at least he went out there and is truley trying to put this all together. http://www.chilling-tales.com/page59.html I have to go into town my limo is waiting Halt Penniston and I have work to do..

John,

I've always stated that I believe you encountered something beyond the realm of conventional explanation back in December 1980 and I'm certainly not one of the doubters who thinks you've made all this up for money, fame etc. (no way). You've always been consistent with your recollection of events, descriptions etc. and I think this makes your testimony highly credible.

I've visited Rendlesham Forest many times over the last few years (in fact, I'm heading back there for a few days camping in August and will be sure to visit the 'finger of trees' and the area that you and Jim identified on your visit last December) and have tried to come up with my own theories as to what could have happened. To be honest though, I always seem to go full circle and just come back to square one, based on the data - I think you encountered a UFO! As to the nature of that UFO though, you're far better qualified to say than me or anybody else, as you were there and we were not.

I'm just an average guy with an interest in the UFO phenomena in general and Rendlesham Forest in particular. I genuinely hope that yourself and the other witnesses get a conclusive answer to this mystery one day, but short of an official admission of what you encountered on those nights in December 1980 (i.e. from the US or UK governments), I can't see this being forthcoming...

Cheers

Steve (Vortex)

Thanks here is somthing to ponder.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... Environmen About to air on C2C

[Observer]

A party balloon filled with helium and floating many hundreds of feet up in the air is a UFO [Unidentified Flying Object]

You can can second guess it was a balloon at a thousand feet but NOT FOR CERTAIN, not untill you get closer for visual recognition. When you are satisfied you have identified it as a balloon, it ceases to be a unidentified and becomes identified.
This was the point being made by BUFORA on UFO's
Obs

[Ignis Fatuus]

[John Burroughs]

Fatuus Stupid and Misleading and now in bed with Ian. I guess Fatuus says it all... I have not laughed so hard in a long time. Giddy up Cowboy..

[bignos]

Ignis surely you should have posted this trailer at least the lead male has the right name
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8hEwMMDtFY

[Vortex]

A party balloon filled with helium and floating many hundreds of feet up in the air is a UFO [Unidentified Flying Object]

You can can second guess it was a balloon at a thousand feet but NOT FOR CERTAIN, not untill you get closer for visual recognition. When you are satisfied you have identified it as a balloon, it ceases to be a unidentified and becomes identified.
This was the point being made by BUFORA on UFO's
Obs

Absolutely. And this is exactly my point about the term UFO being incorrectly synonymous with 'extraterrestrial spacecraft'. The RFI involved encounters with UFOs. Fact. We just don't know for certain the underlying nature of these UFOs (I know I'm stating the obvious here!) and as I've said before, short of an offical admission from those in the know, I don't think we ever will know for certain.

Now of course, as far as Ian Ridpath and others are concerned, these UFOs are actually IFOs (i.e. identified as the lighthouse beam, a fireball, stars etc.) and case-closed. However, with all respect, based on my own expereince visiting Rendlesham Forest on numerous occasions, reviewing the offical documentation surrounding the case and talking to some of the witnesses, I personally just don't buy any of these explanations.

Even if we forget about the fact that there are references to actual 'objects' in the offical documentation associated with this case (i.e. not just mere 'lights in the sky'), I don't understand how lighthouse beams etc. can account for any of the descriptions of the 'objects' encountered (e.g. as described in the witness statements). As an example, take John Burroughs' illustration of the configuration of lights that he witnessed in close proximity on the first night of the events - can anybody explain how a lighhouse beam could create this effect??

Vortex

[Shearwater]

Spot on!
I am certain that the majority of the negative posts on here are made by people who've never spoken to Jim, John. Larry, Chuck etc and who have probably never been to the Forest either.
I've met them all. I've also met John Hanson, Nick Pope, Brenda Butler, David Bryant, Dot Street, Jason Hughes, Paul Williams and many other long-time investigators. There is no substitute for personal experience: once you hear the story from the primary sources, the reality of the event becomes apparent.
Sure not all the accounts agree: that's one of the intriguing aspects of the case. But if they did, I expect some of you would accuse the witnesses of a well-rehearsed collusion!

[webplodder]

Spot on!
I am certain that the majority of the negative posts on here are made by people who've never spoken to Jim, John. Larry, Chuck etc and who have probably never been to the Forest either.
I've met them all. I've also met John Hanson, Nick Pope, Brenda Butler, David Bryant, Dot Street, Jason Hughes, Paul Williams and many other long-time investigators. There is no substitute for personal experience: once you hear the story from the primary sources, the reality of the event becomes apparent.
Sure not all the accounts agree: that's one of the intriguing aspects of the case. But if they did, I expect some of you would accuse the witnesses of a well-rehearsed collusion!

Hearsay is not scientific evidence.

[Shearwater]

Mr Townsend: I never said that the witness accounts constitute 'scientific evidence' (Whatever that means!)
A major frustration to all serious researchers is that a large percentage of data that could be analysed scientifically is classified: 'Damned' as Charles Fort would've said.
We'd all love access to the unpublished data about the RFI, but in the absence of that, we have the - to me at least - intriguing and important testionies of a number of credible witnesses.

Scientists have always been selective about the evidence they accept and the evidence they ignore: generally speaking they discover what they're paid to discover and prove what they're paid to prove. Facts often have little to do with it!

[webplodder]

So here we have the conspiracy card, which is a well worn favourite of those people who have an undying wish to believe ion ETs and their presence here on earth but have no rational evidence to support such a belief system. I'm sorry but the whole UFO movement is simply another aspect of human beings to express a need in religious experience of powerful being (aliens, demons, etc.) to feed their primitive instincts. Why has there never been compelling evidence in terms of photographic or video records of anything genuinely ET? We are told that there was a movie made of the Rendlesham UFO but that it was confiscated. How convenient!

What surprises me is that someone of the stature of Gordon Cooper said he witnessed UFOs. Does this insanity affect anyone?

[David Bryant]

'What surprises me is that someone of the stature of Gordon Cooper said he witnessed UFOs. Does this insanity affect anyone?'

What an incredibly arrogant person you must be! Gordon Cooper is far from being the only astronaut / astronomer / pilot to have reported a well-observed 'UFO'.
The list is very long and includes an X-15 test pilot, astronauts from all US and Soviet programs, combat fighter & bomber pilots / crews, and the discoverer of Pluto. In a survey of 3000 Astronomers conducted by Scientific American magazine: 24% admitted seeing UFOs, 5% described artificial-looking structures and furthermore, 2% of Project Blue Book witnesses were professional Astronomers

You're calling them all insane? I freely admit being part of this 'insanity', having observed half a dozen myself. I am an ex Navy Pilot with degrees in Biochemistry and Astronomy and a CertEd. and have spent quality time with many Astronauts and aviators.
What makes you a self-appointed expert on the subject?